Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

European Union

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

Mr. William Cash: In the words of the Foreign Secretary last week:
The issue of flexibility is probably the most important issue that is being discussed at the intergovernmental conference.
It is on a par with monetary union. I consider the words "flexibility" and "enhanced co-operation" to be typical Euro-speak. They have all the characteristics of the gobbledegook of "subsidiarity". Such language is a cover-up for reducing our veto and increasing the power of the European Union. That is why I have initiated this debate, which goes to the heart of the European question. We are discussing sovereignty and enlargement. As the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), said in his leadership speech to his constituents. "The issue is Europe." It was then, and it is now.
I have here the latest paper on flexibility and enhanced co-operation from the presidency of the European Union, dated 16 January 1997. It has not yet seen the light of day, but I shall put it in the Library after the debate. Referring to the Maastricht treaty—against which I voted 47 times on a three-line Whip—it states:
EMU is probably the most highly developed form of flexibility"—
and what a mess that flexibility put us in. The whole concept of flexibility—which we then conceded—and its effect on us are now being taken into other areas of European government in the European Union.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman makes a great virtue of the fact that he voted against Maastricht 47 times. What, then, possessed him to vote for the Single European Act?

Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because my next words were going to be, "Trade, yes; government, no." That is the distinction, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not seen it.

Mr. Stuart Randall: But the Single European Act went way beyond trade. It was about co-operation as well as trade.

Mr. Cash: Trade and political co-operation are perfectly reasonable. The point that the hon. Gentleman is missing is that, under the rubric of economic and

monetary union, title 2 of the Single European Act was specified in brackets and referred to co-operation, not co-ordination. That is the distinction, and the Maastricht treaty took it that stage further. It is a case of, "Trade and political co-operation, yes; government, no."

Ms Joyce Quin: I am listening with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Is it true that, at the time of the Single European Act, he said in a debate in the House that he thought that the dangers of qualified majority voting were very much exaggerated?

Mr. Cash: In the context of a number of matters in respect of trading relationships, there are perfectly reasonable arguments in favour of qualified majority voting. Otherwise, it would be impossible to remove the logjam and to increase the competition that is necessary for an enterprise Europe. That is the distinction.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of this Parliament is that, if we make mistakes and get things wrong, we can put them right? One of the great problems is that, under European legislation, we cannot do that. If we get it wrong, as we did with the Single European Act—which I did not vote for—we can put it right: we could have put that right in the House. That is what the argument is about.

Mr. Cash: I agree. It is, in fact, essential for us to apply ourselves to reforming the Single European Act. The principle may be acceptable, but the problem is that it has gone badly wrong in a range of areas, the most recent example being the 48-hour working time directive, which came in through the back door. A raft of matters require reform—but that is not to say that the principle of freeing trade in Europe is itself a bad idea.
Flexibility is a Heath Robinson idea. It is like a clock with differentiated and disconnected parts. We are not facing up to the absurdity that is inherent in the idea of variable geometry. For example, it is inconceivable that the European Union would work properly if three member states worked together in defence within a treaty arrangement, five or seven members worked together in monetary union, some worked together in transport and others in energy. The whole thing is complete nonsense. It reminds me of a famous book written by Edmund Burke, which included a description of the constitutional arrangements of Abbé Sieyès. Within the legal framework that has been created, it would be impossible for the European Court of Justice to deal with the differentiations as and when we had a pick-and-choose policy within the flexibility arrangements, as they are being proposed.
We are being seduced into a vast and complex labyrinth of current European policy, which is partly politico-cultural and partly lego-political, and from which we must find a way out. We are not. The continental political culture is alien to our political way of life.
Hon. Members may have come across a book written recently by Thomas Kielinger, a distinguished German commentator, called "Crossroads and Roundabouts: Junctions in German-British Relations". Page 209 quotes Adenauer and states:
Adenauer knew exactly what the British represented. To him they were an essential factor in building the future Europe. Britain's inherent stability and liberal tradition"—


and these are Adenauer's words—
stand in clear contrast to continental Europe.
That is the point. There is a fundamental difference and it goes to the heart of the problem that we face today. There is a significant difference between what Conservative Members might call the Burkeian tradition—the British tradition—and the Napoleonic system. That difference was explained in Burke's famous memorandum, "Reflections on the French Revolution". There is a fundamental difference between our approach to politics and to law and that which prevails on the continent.

Mr. Giles Radice: Of course it is right to say that there are distinctions between us as an island people and the continentals, but most Europeans have wanted the contribution that the British could make, and that is why they wanted us to join the European Union. For example, Brandt gave strong support, as did Adenauer and Erhard. That is why Europeans want us to play a constructive role. That is why Chancellor Kohl does. Just because we can bring a different perspective to the European Union does not mean that that perspective is not also valuable.

Mr. Cash: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I speak in Germany, in France and in other countries throughout Europe, as he does, and I have found much enthusiastic support for the ideas that we are advancing today. We are becoming not merely an economic role model for Europe, but a political role model for many people who are disappointed and gravely disturbed by the developments since the single market.
Continental Europe has a great tendency to be authoritarian. It lacks genuine accountability and abhors scrutiny. In the past century at least, that has led to the rejection of democracy and, in its worst form, to disorder, instability and even war. The proposed solution of flexibility, which is lego-political, aims to defuse the possibility of war by containing Germany, in particular, within a new acquis communautaire of a single institutional and legal framework, which has been established by Maastricht. It will not work. Far from it: it will hand over to Germany legitimated power on a plate, as those economically and politically dependent on her vote with Germany on all the crucial issues.
Enlargement would be damaged either by the fragmentation created by flexibility or by collapsing integration. It can be achieved only by a sensible balance of sovereign member states in trade and political co-operation. The Leader of the Opposition has expressed his opposition to the Government's notion of flexibility, because he is prepared to go along with federalism, deeper integration and the European notion of flexibility. That does not make our own tendency any better or more credible, for the very reasons that I gave in the debate on the confidence motion on Maastricht, where we sold the pass and when there was underlying collusion with the Opposition over its objectives. For some, we are back there again.
I did not vote against the Government on that motion because it would have let the Labour party in under John Smith and we still had time to change direction.

The present Leader of the Opposition is clearly prepared, as is his shadow Chancellor, to go down the same unacceptable route. However, what I said to the Prime Minister on the day of the confidence motion debate was that, unless the Maastricht treaty was renegotiated, we would be faced with the unnecessary option of whether to leave the European Community.
Time is desperately short now, but we are still faced with the same option and, apart from some unclear shifts in phraseology, many of which I welcome, the need for renegotiation remains. The solution remains in the Government's hands. On last week's "Today" programme, following his meeting with our Prime Minister in Amsterdam, Mr. William Kok spoke of flexibility as a "compromise" solution. However, in reality, as with economic and monetary union in the Maastricht treaty, which should then have been fiercely resisted in the Conservative Cabinet and party, "flexibility" is not a "compromise", but an acquiescent, even appeasing concession to further and deeper integration and European government.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman uses the words "in reality". May I ask whether in reality the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with anything less than our country leaving the Community?

Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because, as I have made clear time and again, and again today, my objective is not that we should leave the European Union. I am saying that the consequences of the direction in which we are being taken present a price to the British people, the electorate and the voters, which is taking us further and further towards that critical position. I am saying that, unless we renegotiate the treaties, we are set on a course that will lead us to the impossible question, which I put in the confidence motion debate, of whether we have to leave. That may be too high a price.

Mr. Randall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such talk is certainly not reflected in the opinion polls? The Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph in December showed that there had been a 37 per cent. swing from the Conservative position in 1992, when we had the general election. Labour has a positive approach to Europe compared with such talk. According to the poll, the British people want us to be in Europe. There is no question but that they want us to play a positive role.

Mr. Cash: What complete rubbish the hon. Gentleman speaks. Apart from anything else, poll after poll shows that Britain wants a Europe that works within a single market, but that Britain does not want to come out. The tendency towards coming out is growing precisely because of the failure to clarify these questions. Much of the responsibility for that lies with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the counter-proposal the case, because poll after poll shows that a growing number of people—still a minority, but a growing number—have determined that outright departure from the European Community is the only solution, which is worrying? Is not that my hon. Friend's


point? People recognise that there is an agenda and they do not wish to be part of it. That will grow if it is not faced up to.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend, who has fought many battles with me and other hon. Members who are in the Chamber, is right. The problem is the confusion and the lack of clarity, and the refusal to face the fact that the problem cannot be resolved unless we renegotiate the arrangements that are taking us deeper into the European Union. As that proceeds, it will lead us into greater difficulties.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I do not want to anticipate the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he said in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that repeated opinion polls had shown that people wanted Britain to remain in a single market. The Government have frequently stated that the completion of the single market to our satisfaction was made possible only by the use of the veto. In the new renegotiated relationship that the hon. Gentleman seeks, from which aspects of the current single market would he wish to reclaim the veto?

Mr. Cash: I have made it clear that some areas in the single market require reform and that those reforms cannot be achieved without treaty changes, which require unanimity. I shall come to that later. I should have thought that it was in the interests of everybody in Europe, let alone hon. Members, to try to make the European Union work effectively. That is the bottom line. I am saying not that we should come out but that we could reach the point—and we are getting close to it—where that became a serious possibility

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Perhaps I may offer the House an example. In European Standing Committee B. we shall shortly consider a particularly short-sighted proposal by the European Commission for a compulsory levy on the resale of all modern works of art. Not only is that a tax, but it will drive business away from London and the European Union to other art centres such as New York and Geneva. The tax is being imposed by the Commission on spurious single market grounds and can therefore be decided by majority voting. The issue is not only to retain the unanimity principle in central areas of taxation, but to ensure that the Commission does not try to circumvent those rules by proposing fiscal measures on single market grounds.

Mr. Cash: I am delighted by my right hon. Friend's intervention, because he has enormous experience in those matters, not least because he has been Paymaster General and Minister with responsibility for Europe, and was deputy Chief Whip during the Maastricht debates. I am delighted not only by the clarity and logic of his argument, but by his Damascene conversion, on which I offer him my heartiest congratulations.
We are being seduced into the slipstream of the critical mass of a federal Europe while claiming that we are against it. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a Euro-duck. The rejection of the word "federal" means nothing if we allow the other member states to go ahead, as we did in relation to economic and monetary union under the third stage

protocol. That accepts that the single currency cannot legally be vetoed by any one member state, including the United Kingdom. It also states that it is irrevocable, and we thereby condemn the United Kingdom to be on the sidelines.
It is ironic that it is we, the Euro-realists, who are often criticised by people who say that we are trying to put the United Kingdom on the sidelines. However, under the Maastricht arrangements, we were put on the sidelines by the opt-out. By failing now to insist on renegotiation, which we still have the right to undertake under article N of the treaty on European Union, we continue to sell the pass.
Renegotiation is not, as some of the more trivial commentators whom I shall not bother to mention have been stating, another way of calling for us to get out. However, renegotiation would wrong-foot the federalists. I hear siren voices claiming that we must renegotiate the treaty. I shall not mention names, because we have recently heard some of them. Stripped of all the camouflage, all that that amounts to at present is a proposal to renegotiate quota hopping or the 48-hour working week, while leaving intact the issue of economic and monetary union and the single currency, which would undermine our democracy.
We are prepared to veto the entire intergovernmental conference over issues such as quota hopping, but not on the question whether we can govern ourselves, which is what EMU and the single currency are all about. Why is that? I am afraid to say that it is simply because there has been an increasing concern that we are not admitting that we got it wrong over the disastrous exchange rate mechanism. That fed its way into our lack of credibility on tax and allowed the Opposition a field day, both on that subject, as we saw from what the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said a few days ago, and on the whole question of vulnerability on public expenditure. All that is tied up in the issue and in our prospects for the general election.
There is also an agreement, accepted by the Opposition, to let the other member states, including Germany, go ahead with EMU, which is driven by the Chancellor Kohl's obsession with political union. This is an issue of political principle upon which there can be no compromise, but which, far from being renegotiated, is being extended under the current proposals for the extension of the treaty on European Union, under the same flexibility arrangements that are accepted in the paper which I have here. Dated 16 January, it states that the most perfect example of flexibility is economic and monetary union. We must say no to flexibility now.

Mr. Llew Smith: In the context of renegotiation, would the hon. Gentleman care to look at article 107 of the treaty? That makes it plain that virtually all the major economic decisions will be in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable European central bank. Astonishingly, that article makes it plain that it will be illegal for democratically elected Parliaments or Governments to influence that unelected European central bank. If we allow that to happen or if the matter is not renegotiated, at the general election, those who are elected


will not have the powers to implement their manifesto, and those for whom people cannot vote will have power to make the economic decisions.

Mr. Cash: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The central bank arrangements, which are within the aegis of the European Court of Justice, specifically state that the governors of the bank may not seek or take instructions from member states. That cuts across section 4 of our Bank of England Act 1946 and makes it crystal clear that the umbilical cord connecting Parliament and the electorate—the people who vote in line with their priorities, thus exercising the freedom of choice for which people in this country have fought and died—would be handed over to completely unaccountable, bureaucratic bankers with no guarantee that they will deliver. We have only to look at the mess of the exchange rate mechanism to imagine what would happen if the entire system were placed in the hands of the people who are running that.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. Does he agree that one of the most sinister aspects of the matter is that those who are not even prepared to contemplate renegotiation are effectively saying that all the facts that my hon. Friend describes are so acceptable that one should not even contemplate renegotiation? What resonance does that have in the country at large?

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend puts the matter well, and he is dead right. The problem is that, throughout the House, in the nation as a whole and elsewhere in Europe, concern has built up since the Maastricht treaty. That should lead us to re-evaluate the decisions that were taken at that time, but nothing is being done about that. I shall come to the mechanism that I propose to get renegotiation going. Everybody knows that the system is going ahead. Although the federalists are winning, there is a general protest that, somehow or other, we are doing something to stop the process. Some effective discussions are taking place, but they are neither negotiations nor renegotiations.
The Foreign Secretary—who, as I said, realises the importance of the issue—proposes to engage in a European tour, to explain to the peoples of Europe what is at stake. I entirely agree that we should do so. For what it is worth, for the past few years, I have spoken in Germany, France, Spain, Denmark and in other countries in Europe, at meetings and—as some may have noticed—in the media. The people of Europe are very receptive to the arguments.
I was very much encouraged by the Prime Minister's excellent interview with Hugo Young in this week's issue of The New Yorker, in which he rejected the idea that the United Kingdom would ever allow our right to determine our own electoral priorities at general elections—the very point made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—to be handed over to an unaccountable European central bank. As I have often asked—I asked the then Foreign Secretary, during the Maastricht debates—what could be more centralising than a central bank, despite the Government's and the Opposition's

claims at that time that the Maastricht treaty was a decentralising measure? What could be more centralising and undemocratic than a central bank?

Mr. Dalyell: I had better say that my question is based on the point of view that we should enter into the single currency at the first possible opportunity. Having been candid about that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to be candid on another matter? How would he and his friends react if the Foreign Secretary of Germany or of France came to London, Stafford, Edinburgh or wherever, giving lectures on what we should do? What on earth would he say? What does he think that the Germans, the French and the Italians will say when our Foreign Secretary goes round Europe lecturing them on what to do?

Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, because, only a short time ago, Klaus Kinkel effectively said that he thought that the British people should vote for the Labour party, as a soft option—which is precisely what it is. I hope that those following the debate will take that point on board. The tour shows considerable determination and a desire to get the issues out into the open.
Are we a European Community or are we not? The hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on that point. If we are a community, and if the decisions being taken within the developing legal framework equally affect us and others, we have an absolute right—as I said when I went to Denmark for its referendum debate—to get in there to put our point of view. Otherwise, we shall be only affected by the debate, which relates to my concern about so much majority voting in European government.
Earlier this year, I went to France and gave a speech to a thousand Frenchmen from across France.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Did my hon. Friend speak in French?

Mr. Cash: After I had spoken to them in French—which surprised them as much as it surprised me—they gave me the most tremendous reception. The speech was shown on "Panorama". Those people listened, because they know that their destiny is tied to ours.
How then do we resolve the contradictions? We do so very simply. We have the inalienable right—in line with the Prime Minister's comments in the interview—to put on the formal agenda the issues of a single currency and extension of the doctrine of flexibility. We should combine those issues with the issues of flexibility and the veto, and then, at the intergovernmental conference, take the issue of political principle into the heart of Europe. We should then combine the Foreign Secretary's approach with the Prime Minister's interview, and confront Chancellor Kohl and the political elite of the European Union at the IGC with the democratically expressed views of their own people and their media. If they subsequently did not listen, we would have to veto the entire conference.
The issues are causing much turbulence across Europe and much difficulty for the electorates of Europe. We would get a tremendous reaction from across Europe if we were not merely to walk around Europe speaking to single audiences here and there, but, as a function of government within the IGC, if we were formally to seek


to renegotiate the treaty by putting those issues on the agenda. Individual Governments and the leaders of the member states would then have to respond to the internal democratic pressures being exerted in their own countries. That proposal should answer the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on whether we would be interfering in the affairs of other member states by raising the issues, as the Foreign Secretary is quite rightly proposing to do.
The Foreign Secretary, in raising those issues, will be participating in the European Union and in the European Community. Moreover, if we put the issues on the IGC agenda, the people in individual member states will rise up—as they are already rioting in some countries—against the political elite, forcing it to change the treaty so that it is in line with the people's wishes. There is no other way forward. If we do not raise the issues, we shall simply be helping—despite our protestations to the contrary—to create and even to encourage a federal Europe.
We must take a stand, and let the electorates of Europe have their own say—with the intense media interest that that would generate—as they move towards their own imminent elections. Consider the effect of Britain taking a lead in the IGC—as the Pandora's box is opened—on electorates across Europe. Opinion polls in the UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Austria already prove my point. There are riots and disorder in France and Greece. As the Maastricht criteria bite ever deeper, so my case will be proved. If we took a stand before our general election, whenever it takes place, our prospects would be transformed.
The March 1996 White Paper, however, pointed in exactly the opposite direction. Paragraph 12 stated:
Revisions to the Treaty must be agreed by all. We must be realistic therefore about the sort of changes we can hope to achieve at the IGC, just as we are clear about the sort of changes we will not accept.
It goes on to say that, if we do not do so, an integrationist agenda will be imposed upon us. Such an agenda cannot be imposed upon us. However, we can put the items on the agenda for renegotiation.
The central and hopeless passage in the White Paper states:
If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to impose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view.
As I have said before, the White Paper is a monument to appeasement. It was endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, who would not oppose it. The White Paper also endorses the principle of flexibility, promoted by the new paper of 16 January, from the presidency of the European Union, in line with the conclusions of the reflections Group. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office no doubt thinks back to his time as a participant in that group.
Paragraph 12 of the White Paper states:
It is on this basis that the Government will be approaching the
intergovernmental
Conference.
It goes on to say that there is no serious or real prospect, and that it is not "expected", that the single currency issue will be on the IGC agenda. I do not care whether it is

"expected" to be on the agenda. I am saying, for the reasons that I have already given, that it should be on the agenda.
There are merchants of doom, who see no way out at all; and there are merchants of despair, who subscribe to paragraph 12. A prime example of the merchants of despair is my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I invited him to come to the House to listen to what I have to say. I doubt whether he is interested and I do not know where he is at the moment. On 26 January, writing in the Sunday Express, my right hon. Friend falsely accused me of being "Europhobic". I suggested that he be here today because I am replying to him. In the newspaper, he is described as
one of the Prime Minister's closest friends and advisers
who
calls for a Conservative pact with Labour
on Europe. From the article, he seems to be comfortable with the Labour party on this subject, and he advocates a single currency.
I repudiate the proposal of a pact with Labour, and I repudiate my right hon. Friend's ludicrous assertion that I am Europhobic; my speech and my record show that I am not. My right hon. Friend should know that perfectly well because he was, after all, the deputy Chief Whip and he was the Minister with responsibility for Europe. I trust that he is no longer listened to by the Prime Minister.
I now come to the more important part of what I have to say about my right hon. Friend's article, the rest of which is of no importance. He is wrong in his assertion that the anti-Europeans, who, he says, will "squeal like stuck pigs", are a minority; they are not. When my right hon. Friend claims that, on a free vote, his ideas would prevail, he should take on board the fact that research by Professor Andrew Gamble of Sheffield university and our research in the House show that, on the fundamental Maastricht issues, a substantial majority of approximately 60 per cent. of Back Benchers who were whipped by my right hon. Friend had different views. Things had not been properly explained and certain circumstances had not arisen—I make no complaint about that. Despite that, 60 per cent. of those who replied to the private survey said that they did not agree with the Maastricht treaty. In a new Parliament, my right hon. Friend will be proved even more wrong and he knows it. That is the important point on which I wished to reply.
I now return to my fundamental theme. The 1970 White Paper claimed, contrary to the present assertions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that we would not lose our sovereignty and that we would not give up our veto on matters that were of vital or essential national interest. In the light of my right hon. Friend's present views, I have challenged him on the Floor of the House to repudiate the statements made in the White Paper, but he has refused to reply. Indeed, the White Paper went further and said that for any member state to give up its right to use its veto in its essential national interest, even if in a minority, would
imperil the very fabric of the Community.
That is the point.
In other words, the whole concept of flexibility, which means moving down the route towards increased majority voting—that is implicit in the EMU arrangements, which


the presidency paper says is the best example of flexibility—is in direct contradiction to the 1970 White Paper, which said that to go down that route would
imperil the very fabric of the Community.
That comment is hardly surprising. Already, there are riots, disorder and all the rest of it. The unemployment rate is getting higher and there may be problems with defence and other matters. If member states create a compression chamber and then have majority voting inserted by treaty arrangement within a legal framework, who will be surprised if the fabric of the Community is destroyed? It is precisely for that reason that I repudiate the assertion made by hon. Members who oppose me when I say that I am in favour of the European Union—of the kind that I want.
Maastricht and its bedfellow, the doctrine of flexibility, will destroy the fabric of the Community. My criticism of those who advocate or acquiesce in the current proposals for the IGC—I include the proposals in paragraph 12 of the White Paper—is that they undermine our position in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. The treaty must be renegotiated in the present IGC and that requires a degree of political will among the political elite, who are far removed from present public opinion throughout the Union.
I invite hon. Members to look at the presidency conclusions of and the statement on the Dublin summit, which describe the single currency and the stability pact, which has yet to be debated in the House, in terms only of economic and not of political significance. That is a travesty. It is abundantly clear that the criteria are being fudged; that comes out in the Treasury paper and in my recent correspondence with Mr. Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England, which is referred to in The Times. We are seeing a welcome shift towards recognition of the fact that the criteria are clearly being fudged, even if people do not want to say so too openly. I am a plain speaker; I like speaking bluntly about these matters. The criteria are being fudged. Let us get them changed and let us renegotiate, so that we can start sorting things out.
We did not veto the stability pact when we could and should have done. The result is that, like the hard core of EMU, it has been allowed to go ahead, again under the doctrine of flexibility. One way or another, we shall pay for the stability pact as we have paid for so many other things. Indeed, even our opt-out from EMU is flexible and not permanent. Hon. Members may recall that the opt-out says that, even if we say no to begin with, we can say yes later.
The presidency paper of 16 January suggests that that approach would apply to all other policies brought within the doctrine of flexibility. Furthermore, as we already know with the social chapter and the European Monetary Institute, we are expected to pay for the running of policies under the doctrine of flexibility. That is made clear in the presidency paper under the heading "Financing". It says that it is expected that, if the doctrine of flexibility is introduced, member states within the general framework of the European Union will have to pay for the running of the institutions that service them. It is the same with the EMI and the social chapter; that is the name of the game. We are moving further and further

down that route. We are allowing the whole federal arrangement to go ahead without using the veto when it really matters.
I come now to the areas of government now under threat and draw attention to an important distinction that must be made—the difference between trade and matters such as the social chapter, which are non-governmental, and those that are governmental, such as EMU, defence, foreign policy, justice and home affairs. It may be news to some that the new presidency paper includes defence as a "likely" candidate. I understand that the Government have, amazingly, not ruled that out. The reason is that, even if the other member states went ahead, they could not efficiently carry out a European defence policy without the United Kingdom. That idea needs to be hit on the head; it is dangerous stuff. If there is a serious intention that the doctrine of flexibility should be applied to defence, that is absolutely that. There is no question about it whatever. Monetary union, no; defence, no; foreign policy, no.
I recall Chancellor Kohl saying that the Union must not be slowed down to the speed of the slowest member. The U-boats knew all about that. No doubt their flexibility of movement was also regarded as enhanced co-operation.
Even taxation is mentioned in the presidency paper and there is a threat of action outside the treaty. In other words, if the federalists do not get their way, the gun will be put to our head and they will say, "We will carry on and we will do things outside the treaty if you do not do them inside." That is blackmail. Not only that, but it provides us with a perfectly reasonable basis not only to insist on renegotiation, but to veto the entire conference and put the federalists in the wrong. They are the ones who would say that they would do things on their terms, outside the treaty, whereas we would renegotiate under article N and would deal with all those questions in a proper and legal fashion. That is the difference. Why can we not take a lead on those lines?
Even the common agricultural policy is said to be inviolable under the proposed arrangements. My hon. Friend the Minister may shake his head; I hope that that is because he agrees with me that the CAP cannot be inviolable. However, my point is that that is the direction in which the presidency paper is taking us. It appears that the difference between our approach to flexibility and that of other member states is not one of principle.
We now know that EMU is regarded as the best example of flexibility. When I cross-examined the Foreign Secretary in the Select Committee on European Legislation in February last year, I asked him whether the single currency was a matter of principle. He said that he did not follow what I was saying. I know the Foreign Secretary too well to think that he could not follow what I am saying. I say that it is a question of principle and I am glad to note that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conceded that, saying that he has no objection to the idea of the single currency as a matter of principle.
All those issues are interwoven. I want the Government to win and I want Britain to win. I want us to renegotiate the treaty and to wrong-foot the federalists in Europe. If we do that, we shall be in line with the wishes of the people of Europe. We shall be performing a function of general benefit to the United Kingdom and to the people of Europe.
According to our White Paper, we are supposed to be against a hard core, but now we are refusing to rule it out. Perhaps we should not be surprised, in view of paragraph 12 of the White Paper, to which I have just referred. On 23 January—to show my hon. Friend the Minister that I have been following speeches on the subject closely—the Foreign Secretary said:
Open to all, agreed by, all should be our watchword.
I hope to hear from the Minister today that we shall veto the proposals now on the table, even if that means contradicting the thoroughly flawed policy of variable geometry, for the hard core is variable geometry. If we rule out one, we must rule out the other. Otherwise, we shall be letting the process of flexibility go forward.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As one who is not on your list to speak, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate has now been going on for five minutes more than half the time available—for 45 minutes? Was it the purpose of these Wednesday morning debates, which were meant to be a substitute for short Adjournment debates, that the hon. Member opening the debate should take more than half the time available?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): To the best of my knowledge, there is no ruling on that. Certainly, it would be normal practice for the proposer to allow time for other hon. Members, but there is no ruling.

Mr. Cash: I issued an invitation to many of my colleagues, asking whether they wished to speak. Only one said that he wished to do so. I have had a series of repeated interventions from Opposition Members, which have delayed me, but I shall press on.
We are letting the process of flexibility go forward. There is a world of difference between having a veto and exercising it. The Leader of the Opposition gets away with his policy on the use of the veto by blurring that difference time and again. We do too little to stop him. There is a determination not to highlight the Maastricht treaty because it would show how much the Government sold the pass then and how much we are liable to concede.
In the White Paper in March last year, the Government said that there must not be a two-tier Europe with a hard core of countries or policies, but that is precisely what was agreed at Maastricht over EMU and that is the direction in which we are going. I warned the Conservative party manifesto committee against that six years ago in the paper that the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), asked me to write on Europe. I also warned against a two-speed Europe, because such a policy assumes that we have surrendered the principle of further integration. The same goes for words such as "variable geometry" and "multi-track".
That fits in with the concentric circles plan, which is what Germany wants in the pursuit of its national interest. It wants the European Court of Justice adjudicating over a federal Europe. Chancellor Kohl and his advisers, including Karl Lamers, make it clear that it is Germany's historic mission to use its will to achieve European integration. Karl Lamers even refers to one country, saying that the nation state is
no more than an empty shell".

It is our historic duty to prevent them. That requires us to be at the table at the intergovernmental conference for the renegotiation of the treaty on European Union. The Government are not attempting to do that. That is as bad as the "wait and see" policy.
The Government are not negotiating or deciding at the IGC table on the single currency, despite what was said at the party conference; nor are they renegotiating or deciding on the essential issues. I should like to know why. If we do not renegotiate, either we are drawn further in by flexibility or we are faced with the question of getting out. That is why the sooner we stop pretending that we can live with flexibility, the better.

Mr. Giles Radice: I thought that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was going to treat the House to an explanation of his position on the national veto, because that was what the debate was apparently meant to be about. Instead, he treated the House to his usual extremely lengthy, wide-ranging, anti-European Union rant, with which those of us who had the misfortune to listen through all the Maastricht debates are all too familiar. Perhaps he was trying to justify his right to write his own manifesto when the time comes—we shall see—or perhaps he is giving a hint to one or two of his colleagues on what they should put in their manifestos.

Mr. Duncan Smith: That was his manifesto.

Mr. Radice: I understand that.
I should like to say a few words about the veto. I am strongly in favour of the Labour party policy of retaining unanimous voting—and therefore a national veto—on issues that are vital to Britain, such as taxation, immigration, defence, treaty changes, enlargement and the European Union budget, because they are so important. However, qualified majority voting has been valuable to the development of the European Union.
The hon. Member for Stafford and others of his hon. Friends who argue in favour of retaining the veto in all circumstances forget that, with unanimous voting, Britain's veto is also Spain's veto, France's veto and Germany's veto, so other countries can block policies that we support. That simple fact persuaded the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to support qualified majority voting on the single market. She realised that it was in Britain's interest to extend the single market as quickly as possible, but that without qualified majority voting others might block its development in areas vital to British national interests. There are many examples of how right she was. Qualified majority voting has helped to open up banking, insurance and public procurement to British firms.
Last June, for example, the electricity liberalisation directive passed through the Council of Ministers only because it was subject to qualified majority voting. Had the national veto been retained, France would have been able to block that measure. Qualified majority voting will also be needed to open up the gas market.

Mr. Bill Walker: In practice, the so-called opening up has not happened. Qualified majority voting may produce


a certain decision, as the hon. Gentleman claims, but the decision has not been put into effect: the two-way street in electricity is not in existence even now.

Mr. Radice: That, I am afraid, is totally incorrect. There is no doubt that the single market has been substantially successful. If the hon. Gentleman had read the European Commission report on the success of the single market, he would understand that many markets have been opened up to British exporters, among others. We have been one of the major beneficiaries of the single market, as Baroness Thatcher well understood. That was one of her sensible policies on the European Union.
The general agreement on tariffs and trade would not have been achieved if trade issues had not been subject to qualified majority voting. If the national veto had applied, France could have blocked the agreement and pushed for a more protectionist policy. For example, we would all like to see reform of the common agricultural policy, but the reforms achieved so far—the MacSharry reforms—would not have been passed without qualified majority voting. Further reforms will be achieved only with qualified majority voting.
Qualified majority voting has been extremely useful. The so-called Euro-sceptics are so defensive about these matters that they do not understand that it is possible to build up winning majorities and that Britain very often does so. I understand that the United Kingdom was outvoted only seven times out of 261 in 1993–94—the latest year for which figures are available. It is therefore sensible to consider qualified majority voting in a pragmatic case by case assessment of where the British national interest lies. That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary said in evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation:
If there were an area of European Union policy which could only be advanced through majority voting and which we were convinced would serve important United Kingdom interests, then it would be foolish and illogical of us not to support majority voting in that area.
That is a sensible approach and one that we should adopt at the intergovernmental conference.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not the hon. Gentleman emphasising the case of those whom he describes as Euro-sceptics? Every example of qualified majority voting that he has cited has been in relation to trade. Conservative Euro-sceptics are in favour of a proper and full trade arrangement with Europe, but do not want it to trespass into matters that we consider to be of sovereign and constitutional importance to Britain.

Mr. Radice: The single market was always much more far-reaching than Conservative Members supposed. It always had certain political implications and subjected more decisions to what they call the "interference" of the European Court of Justice. If a single market has rules, there has to be some means of settling any dispute. The Euro-sceptics would like to rule out the European Court of Justice altogether. I will cite some more examples, which the hon. Gentleman may find more difficult to rebut.
First, there is a case for extending qualified majority voting to regional and structural funds, which account for 25 per cent. of the EU budget. If EU membership

increases, the amount spent on structural funds will increase proportionately. If membership reached 27, for instance, those funds would double. Clearly reform is needed to prevent that from happening and to protect the British taxpayer. It will not be possible to reform regional and structural funds and keep them under control without qualified majority voting.
Secondly, we stand to benefit considerably from European research and development programmes, but the current system of negotiation works against British interests and denies us funds for which we would qualify on competitive grounds. Again, qualified majority voting in those matters would suit the British interest.
Thirdly, the Government say that they are in favour of tough anti-fraud measures; but these are subject to the national veto, and it is quite easy for national Governments to veto tougher measures if they consider them to be against their national interests. Again, qualified majority voting would help us and safeguard the British taxpayer.
I have drawn attention to three areas in which the extension of qualified majority voting would help our national interests. If the European Union accepts more members, there is a case for the extension of qualified majority voting; otherwise, the EU will be brought to a halt. I appreciate that that is exactly what certain Conservative Members want, but the vast majority of European people do not agree with them. That is a further argument for extending qualified majority voting.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Stafford down the path of flexibility, although I share his view. I am against the so-called French-German clause of strengthened co-operation as it will encourage a hard core, which would be against British interests. It was devised as a result of British obstructionism and I am not in favour of it; I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
I have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Stafford on many occasions, so I am beginning to get the measure of the points that he makes. He boasts of having voted in favour of British entry into the European Union, but apparently he had not yet read the treaty of Rome. He says that he is in favour of a free trade area. The Common Market was always much more than a free trade area, so the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what it was all about.
The hon. Gentleman says that he is against British withdrawal, or at any rate that he is not in favour of it at the moment, but the problem is his attitude to the European Union. He says that in principle he is against Britain joining a single currency and he is quite prepared to wreck the intergovernmental conference on the veto, flexibility clause or any other issue, and that he wants to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. That would amount, if not to total withdrawal, certainly to a semi-detached Britain. That is not a position for a major country to take.
As the hon. Gentleman knows—because his family has suffered, as has mine—anything that happens on the continent is vital to Britain, and it would be extraordinarily dangerous for us to detach ourselves from Europe in that way. The hon. Gentleman allows his anti-German prejudices—which he sometimes admits, and which he admitted again this morning—to cloud his judgment as to where Britain's national interest lies. Not only is he a danger to the Tory party—we do not mind


him splitting the Tory party, as he has been doing very effectively for the past four or five years—but he is a danger to Britain because he does not understand where British national interests lie. I hope that after the general election we shall have a Labour Government with a constructive policy on Europe to promote British national interests.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Time is short, but that shows how quickly time passes when we are enjoying ourselves. I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). As he said so much that I would have said, I shall be brief.
My first point is that we cannot go on in this way. Essentially, we are in the European Community under false premises. When we joined, we thought that we were entering a common market, for that is what it was called, although the intellectual elite among us—or those who like to consider themselves as such—might have read the treaty of Rome and realised that, far from being a Common Market, it was actually a mere stepping stone towards a federal destiny.
The first time I read the treaty of Rome, it was in my red box when I had to go to Europe to speak on some matter because another Minister was ill. I realised then that we had been misled by the Government of the day.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Nicholls: I am sorry, but I have very little time.
When I read the treaty, I realised for the first time that we would have to have a great deal more sympathy with our European partners' perception that we were not very good Europeans. We joined what we thought was a common market, but it was no such thing. At the time, we were assured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that any idea that we were moving towards a federal Europe was scaremongering. He said:
There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty … These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified".
We know now, under the 30-year rule, that the advice tendered by the Lord Chancellor of the day was that there would be an inevitable and crucial compromise of sovereignty.
Although it may be our fault that we went into the European Community under false premises, that is the position that we are now in. We have to say to our European partners, "You have a vision of the future and if you want to follow it, that is entirely right for you; there is nothing ignoble about wanting a federal destiny, but it is not right for us." We must say that the Europe in which we could participate as good and enthusiastic Europeans is essentially a trading arrangement.
I and others like me say that we do not want to leave the Community, and indeed we do not. In some ways, it would be much easier for people like me to say, "Yes, I am in favour of leaving the Community," but I am in favour of a European relationship with which we can feel comfortable—and that means renegotiation. Before there can be any possibility of such renegotiation, however, one crucial event must take place: the Conservative party must win the next election. Despite what people try to suggest

about some great split in the Conservative party on Europe, there is more than sufficient in common in all shades of opinion in the Conservative party for us to be able to offer a unique and distinctive alternative to the Labour party.
Whatever differences the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I might have on Europe, we would be at one in saying, "This far, and no further," on federalism. That is my position and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and it is completely distinctive from that of the Opposition parties. As we have seen today, their idea of renegotiation is to put in a pre-emptive cringe and go along with federalism because, they say, we cannot stand on our own two feet in the world. I look forward to a time when we can renegotiate and when we can have a relationship with Europe that is good and comfortable for both sides, but the prerequisite for that to happen is a Conservative victory at the next election.

Ms Joyce Quin: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on his success in winning the ballot. This seemed a surprising subject for an Adjournment debate as it is so wide-ranging, although I could understand it if the hon. Gentleman felt that there had not been enough occasions to debate the issues on the Floor of the House. I share the criticism that the Committees which scrutinise European legislation and others have made that the Government have not allowed enough time for many of the wide-ranging European issues to be discussed and have tended to hide the discussions away in Committee rather than allow them to take place on the Floor of the House for more widespread scrutiny and debate.
We heard a lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Stafford, which I regret, as there were certainly Opposition Members who wanted to speak. The hon. Gentleman said that he had ascertained which of his hon. Friends wanted to speak and that there was not much demand. If he is really as keen on democracy as he says he is, it would have been courteous to ascertain how many Opposition Members would have liked to contribute to the debate. I have come to the place in my notes where I noted that I should refer to the speeches made by other hon. Members. Unfortunately, there were only two because of lack of time, but I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who showed himself to be more of a Euro-realist, to use the hon. Member for Stafford's term, than the hon. Gentleman himself.
I also listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). He referred to his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who played such an important role in this country becoming part of the European Community. I must point out, however, that the right hon. Gentleman contests the view put forward by the hon. Member for Teignbridge. A recent article in The Daily Telegraph pointed out that at that time—as those of us who followed to debate will remember—it was not simply a question of joining some kind of free trading agreement or common market. Many speeches were made by right hon. and hon. Members from all political parties pointing to the issue of sovereignty. I remember those debates taking place in my party and I remember reading about those debates taking place in Parliament.

Mr. Bill Walker: I remind the hon. Lady that between 1972 and 1975 those of us who had read the treaty of Rome


and pointed out what was involved were constantly told that we were wrong. We said that the treaty of Rome was much deeper and much more than just a common market, but we were told that we were wrong.

Ms Quin: The fact that the hon. Gentleman says that he pointed out those issues shows that they were raised in the debate, and anybody who took an interest in European policy at the time knows that they were raised by many people. The most perfunctory reading of the treaty of Rome, especially the preamble on the first page, would have made the position completely clear.

Mr. Randall: Did not the heads of state refer in that preamble to the ever closer union of their peoples?

Ms Quin: My hon. Friend cites the preamble, with which we are all familiar. The hon. Member for Stafford said that he was proud of his record in having opposed the Maastricht treaty, although he seemed less forthcoming about his role in supporting the Single European Act, which, as we know, was guillotined through the House of Commons by the Government, led by Baroness Thatcher.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Ms Quin: No, I will not give way any more because of lack of time.
At the time of the Single European Act, the hon. Gentleman said that he believed that the dangers of qualified majority voting were much exaggerated. It is, of course, fair for him to change his mind, but it is not fair for him to claim that he has been entirely consistent on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the working time directive and said that it had come in through the back door. I have to contest that, as the working time directive is based on the health and safety provisions contained in the Single European Act, which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supported. The fact that the Government then negotiated an opt-out from the social chapter does not negate the other legal possibilities for social and employment legislation, including the health and safety provisions of the Single European Act. Far from being a back door, that is an obvious route if one is concerned that excessive working hours and lack of holidays have an effect on health and safety, which has been well proved even by information from by the Department of Health.
The Government now tell us that the working time directive is a make-or-break issue for the intergovernmental conference, although somewhat confusingly they tell us that quota hopping is also a make-or-break issue. Other issues raised in the Government's White Paper also seem to be make-or-break issues. When the Minister replies—I appreciate that he has not so much time to respond to the debate as he might have wished—perhaps he will tell us what support he is getting from other Governments on those various make-or-break issues, so that at least the House can be better informed by the Government than we have been up to now.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford, have raised the issue of flexibility and I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham on the subject. Certainly, if "flexibility" is simply a code for a two-tier Europe in which Britain loses

influence, we would not approve, but at this stage most of the discussions about flexibility are not entirely clear and we must see exactly what is proposed.
Mention was made of the Foreign Secretary's tour of Europe to appeal to the peoples of Europe over the heads of the Governments. I appreciated the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on that subject. As he pointed out, when Mr. Kinkel made similar comments about the United Kingdom's position, that was criticised by Members on both sides of the House as interference. It therefore seems strange that the Foreign Secretary is embarking on that tour of Europe.
It is also rather strange because the Foreign Secretary seems to have a great deal to do to convince his own party and the British people that he is representing them effectively in Europe. He seems unaware that we shall be having a general election, and proposes to spend most of his time abroad converting European populations to his cause, or perhaps he has already admitted defeat in the general election.
The hon. Member for Stafford also referred to the Government's White Paper. He was one of those who were most vociferous in calling on the Government to produce a White Paper, but was of course extremely disappointed when it was produced. In an earlier debate, he called it
a whited sepulchre … dead on the inside."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 567.]
Today he even seemed to consider it a monumental mistake. We believed that the White Paper was schizophrenic because it was trying to appeal to two different audiences. It was trying to placate the remaining Europhiles in the Conservative party while at the same time placating Conservative Euro-sceptics. Not surprisingly, therefore, it failed woefully.
One of the issues of which the Government made great play in the White Paper was the role of the European Court of Justice. The Government were again schizophrenic in saying on the one hand that they wanted a strong European court to defend the rights of countries in the single market and to ensure that countries were compelled to live up to their obligations, while on the other hand they wanted a weak European court where obligations would have to be fully complied with only in serious or manifest breaches of Community law. Those two attitudes seem completely inconsistent. Will the Minister resolve that inconsistency and tell us how much support other countries have given to their comments on the European Court of Justice?
We believe that the dangers of some conspiracy against the British veto, which the hon. Member for Stafford seemed keen to point out, are not present in the European Union in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. During the Government's policy of non-co-operation in Europe, we saw the large number of issues that are decided by unanimity. We do not propose to make those issues not subject to the veto—certainly those that came up during the period of non-co-operation.
I recommend that the hon. Gentleman studies the list of proposals that were blocked at that time. The number of issues that are dealt with by unanimity in the European treaties may give him some comfort. The draft document being put forward by the Irish presidency, which looks ahead to the intergovernmental conference, is cautious, pragmatic and realistic in tone rather than super-federalist, and does not fulfil the conspiracy theories of which the hon. Gentleman seems to be so fond.
Although the veto is obviously important, it is also important in the European Union to build alliances. In many ways, whether something is determined by unanimity or qualified majority voting is not always the point. Despite the fact that QMV operates in agricultural policy, which has been mentioned in this debate, in practice countries tend to talk around the issues to reach a consensus. That is very often a sensible way forward in the European system.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that we need a different approach to the European issue. We need an approach that will give the British people a better deal from their EU membership and make for more constructive co-operation on economic, environmental, employment and social matters, all of which are important. The British people will get that better deal only under a Labour Government.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) not only on securing this debate but on the best speech that I have heard him make on this subject in all the many years I have listened to him. I grant that it was not the shortest speech, but then that is a pretty difficult race to win. Although I obviously do not agree with everything that he said—not least his apparent comparison between Neville Chamberlain and myself in respect of appeasement—I certainly felt that he addressed the issue vigorously, as did the whole House.
A number of very perceptive interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford highlighted how important and central the issue of flexibility is. I am sure that flexibility will be the central axis of the negotiations in Amsterdam, and there will be a great deal of movement around it at that time. I am delighted that he has taken the role of John the Baptist in going around Europe before my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, preparing the way for him. I trust that my hon. Friend will have a better fate than the original John the Baptist.
The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) highlighted perfectly the issue that is at the heart of flexibility: the difficulty of squaring the circle between those who want one vision of Europe and those who want a federalist Europe. His input was very good. I also enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). He and I do not agree on many aspects of Europe, but I recognise how hard he has fought his case in his own party over the past decade.

Mr. Dalyell: How would the Minister feel if Klaus Kinkel went around Britain lecturing us?

Mr. Davis: I was asked that question on the radio. After five minutes of discussing what Mr. Kinkel said, the radio interviewer attacked me for not being more critical of him. I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to ask what right my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has to put his views. The answer is a very great right. Our argument is recognised and supported by many of the peoples in Europe, and it is perfectly right for my

right hon. and learned Friend to say, "This is a better future for Europe than the one being offered by some distinctly federalist Governments around Europe."
The debate has largely focused on flexibility, which has been hung on the hook of enlargement of the Union in the past. Enlargement to include the new democracies of the Union is certainly this generation's greatest challenge and opportunity. It is a vital vocation for the Union. Flexibility within it is driven by two views of the future after enlargement. On the one hand, there are those countries which argue that widening should mean deepening, to use the jargon of the art.
That view is virtually adopted by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who in December attacked the idea of maintaining Britain's veto after enlargement on a number of grounds. He said:
let's disentangle those two quite separate concepts … let's take first the issue of majority voting and then we can look at the issue of centralisation".
He missed the point entirely, of course, because majority voting is quintessentially about centralisation. By definition, majority voting means overruling nation states, and overruling nation states means moving power from the nation state to the centre. However, I shall not labour that point for too long, as I have only a few minutes to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.
The other view of Europe is our view: Europe's strength lies in its diversity. That is the British vision. The approach that we support is designed for a Europe which respects the differing political traditions, social cultures, historical experiences and geographical features of member states, a Union with which all member states feel comfortable, which develops on the basis of consensus as well as diversity—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge.
Flexibility is already a reality in Europe. Not everyone agrees with it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford highlighted that. The obvious examples are the provisions on monetary union and the United Kingdom's social protocol opt-out, but there are other, less obvious, examples of flexibility. The issue of zero rating of value added tax has been somewhat controversial recently. Britain and Ireland are the only two countries in Europe to maintain a derogation on zero rating on VAT on food and various other items. That demonstrates flexibility within Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised the question whether flexibility would make Britain a second-class citizen and aid the on-rush of federalism in Europe. We differ on that issue. However, if he was describing the effect of the Franco-German proposal, I would agree with him wholeheartedly. That would certainly have the effect that he described. France and Germany have proposed a form of flexibility in which no member state would have a right of veto: it would be a veto bypass—there is no other way of describing it—and we oppose that wholeheartedly. That is—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next topic.

Cold Weather Payments (Scotland)

11 am

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am grateful for the opportunity to express my concerns and the concerns of the Scottish National party about the operation of the cold weather payments scheme and the problem of fuel poverty in Scotland. The scheme was intended to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens had enough money to finance extra fuel requirements over winter. I aim to highlight the fact that it has failed on several fronts to achieve its aim.
To be eligible for a cold weather payment, an individual must be entitled to income support or income-related jobseeker's allowance and either be in receipt of a pension or disability premium or have a dependent child aged under five years. Payments of £8.50 a week are triggered only if the average mean daily temperature is 0 deg C or below for seven consecutive days or if such temperatures are forecast for the next seven days. The Meteorological Office monitors temperatures on behalf of the Benefits Agency at 70 weather stations in the United Kingdom, 18 of which are in Scotland.
It is widely recognised that anomalies in the existing system mean that it is failing to meet the requirements of those in need. The cold weather payments scheme was intended to prevent our most vulnerable citizens from getting into the dreadful position of being unable affordably to heat their homes during the cold winter. Its success or failure must be measured against that aim. The prevalence of fuel poverty among Scotland's poor therefore reveals the inadequacy of the current system.
Fuel poverty is defined as the inability to afford adequate warmth in the home because of low incomes and energy-inefficient dwellings. Energy Action Scotland estimates that about 800,000 households in Scotland still experience fuel poverty. That represents a staggering one in three Scottish homes. Poorer households tend to live in the least insulated and hardest to heat homes.
The 1991 Scottish house condition survey found that single parents, large families, the unemployed and retired people were far more likely to live in properties affected by condensation and damp, in both the public and private sectors. To achieve adequate warmth, such housing requires more fuel, so the poor have to designate a greater proportion of their disposable income to fuel costs.
An accepted definition of affordable warmth in purely monetary terms seems to be that no more than 10 per cent. of disposable income should be spent on fuel, yet Energy Action Scotland estimates that poorer families and individuals generally spend as much as 20 per cent. of their weekly income on fuel, compared with the UK average of only 5 per cent.
Research conducted by the Scottish Consumer Council has confirmed that low-income families tend to have electrical heating systems, which usually consume more fuel and are more expensive to run. The imposition of value added tax on fuel therefore has a proportionally greater impact on those who can ill afford to pay it. Once again, the Government have revealed their twisted priorities, adding to the misery of the poor instead of alleviating it.
Fuel debt is also a major problem in Scotland, representing the second largest form of debt after rent arrears in the social rented sector. In May 1995,

44,805 income support claimants—8 per cent.—had fuel costs deducted at source from their weekly benefits, to assist debt recovery.
Although the number of electricity disconnections has decreased, there has been a significant increase in the installation of prepayment meters, which are often offered as a last-resort alternative to disconnection. A study conducted by Scottish Power in 1993 found that each year about 7,500 households repeatedly go without electricity for more than 24 hours. That is effectively a system of self-disconnection. Almost half the respondents to the survey explained that they could not afford to buy power cards, which is a cause for great concern.
All those factors have a devastating impact on the health of the nation. The number of deaths from hypothermia significantly increases during the winter months. It is widely recognised that official records grossly under-record such deaths and gravely underestimate the problem.
During the debate on the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), said:
Wearing my medical hat, let me say that hypothermia … affects many people who die of chronic heart failure or chronic obstructive airways disease. I have no doubt that for thousands of people death is hastened by hypothermia even though it does not appear on their death certificates."—[Official Report, 17 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 586.]
A more accurate measure of winter mortality rates is to assess the number of excess winter deaths by comparing the number of deaths from December to March with the number in the four months on either side.
I asked the Library to provide me with those figures, and I was told that the number of deaths in December 1994 to March 1995 was more than 600 per month higher than in the adjacent months, giving a total excess of 2,500 deaths for the December-March period. A survey of preceding years shows similar figures. Research has confirmed that most of the excess winter deaths are accounted for by elderly people, most of whom die of respiratory or cardiovascular disease. I am certain that those deaths are cold-related, and the fact that many of them could be avoided enhances the horror of the Government's tolerance of fuel poverty.
The present Prime Minister acknowledged the fact that there was a problem as long ago as 1986, when he was a junior Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security. He said that the excess winter deaths had
perplexed successive Governments for years… The real problem, then as now… is not hypothermia, but the additional deaths from all causes, particularly heart disease, strokes and chest infections, which tend to occur in winter. It is a long-standing problem that our excess winter mortality rate is higher than that in other countries with severe winters, such as Sweden."—[Official Report, 2 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 834–35.]
Nothing has changed. If the Prime Minister and his Government have not learnt the lessons in the intervening 10 years, I hope that he will take the time to read the debate and to listen to the voices of the numerous voluntary and professional organisations campaigning to eradicate the obscenity of fuel poverty.
During the winter of 1993–94, a group of Scottish doctors undertook a study of urban hypothermia in the west of Scotland. The results were published in the British Medical Journal in September 1995. The group studied patients coming to hospitals in Glasgow, Paisley,


Coatbridge and Airdrie. It estimated that, because of the difficulty of determining the cause of deaths in the home, there could be an under-recording of deaths from hypothermia of more than 300 per cent.
The report confirmed my fear that excess winter mortality in Britain is greatest among socially deprived people with the worst heating. The majority of the patients—53 out of the 93 studied—were found inside the home, and most lived alone. All but two of the patients had heating, but two thirds of them had it switched off when they were found. The report noted that one of the explanations for the reluctance of elderly people to use heating in winter was the cost or perceived cost of fuel.
The prevalence of fuel poverty and cold-related deaths clearly demonstrates the extent to which the cold weather payments scheme fails to meet immediate need. One major problem is that there is no guarantee that payments will be made when the freeze comes. Without that predictability, people will simply not take the risk of running up fuel bills that they know they cannot afford to pay.
It is conceivable that we could experience five or six days of freezing temperatures, followed by a thaw that significantly increases the temperature for only a short time, bringing the average temperature for the seven-day period to above 0 deg C. In this lottery, is it any wonder that the elderly are too frightened to turn up the heat when they are left with the worry that they may not be able to meet the payments?
The scheme's eligibility criteria are far too restrictive. If we take the number of households on means-tested benefits as a measure of poverty, it includes 35 per cent. of households in Scotland, compared with 28 per cent. in England. I have already noted that fuel poverty is compounded by low income, yet the Government's scheme falls far short of providing assistance to Scotland's poor. In addition, the Department of Social Security estimates that between 34 and 41 per cent. of pensioner households eligible for income support fail to take it up, so they are denied access to cold weather payments.
Thus, the amounts paid out, even in the exceptionally cold winter of 1995–96, understate the need for extra help. It is not enough for the Government to make excuses and do nothing about it. If the Minister's conscience does not bother him and he does not share our sense of moral responsibility, perhaps he prefers to view the problem in financial terms. Scottish hospitals spent an estimated £20 million last year alone on treatment of respiratory illnesses.
A fundamental flaw in the existing scheme is its failure to take account of climatic variations in different parts of the United Kingdom. The payment, when it is triggered, is a flat rate of £8·50, regardless of whether the temperature is 0 or minus 15 deg C. That failure arises in spite of the Department of the Environment's admission in response to a parliamentary question in 1994 that it took more fuel to heat a house in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To heat a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating takes 23 per cent. more fuel in Glasgow than in Bristol; 28 per cent. more in Edinburgh; 32 per cent. more in Dundee—I see the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) here this morning; he may be interested in that figure—41 per cent.

more in Aberdeen; 52 per cent. more in Lerwick and 66 per cent. more in Braemar. Those figures may underestimate the real costs.
Using the climatic severity index, independent experts found that 69 per cent. more fuel was needed in Lerwick in the Shetland isles than to heat a house of the same standard in London. It is worth considering that it is roughly the same distance from Lerwick to Southampton as it is from Southampton to Madrid. No one would deny that the latter was significantly warmer.
The location of the designated weather station is a key issue. People who live in upland villages and towns are sometimes linked with weather stations in lowland areas many miles away, where the temperature is warmer. It is too early to judge whether the recent increase in the number of weather stations, following a recommendation by the Meteorological Office, has adequately dealt with the geographical anomalies. It is interesting that the Met Office review included a proposal to provide post code-specific weather reports at no extra cost, which could allow a far more localised trigger. I wonder why the Government chose not to introduce such a system.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the hon. Lady will develop her and her party's argument for a fundamental change to the system, but does she agree that she, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I have seen some interim improvements, and that more sensitivity has been displayed in terms of location of weather station, although glaring anomalies are still very much to the fore? I could cite several from my area, such as the Isle of Skye, mid-west Ross and Inverness. Does she agree that, at least as an interim measure, the Minister should consider a review short of a fundamental, wholesale review of the system?

Ms Cunningham: Absolutely. That is a fair point. My party would like to see a complete change, but there is no doubt that even the present system could be made far more responsive.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Although on 18 December we discussed the new stations and, for example, Salsburgh in the uplands of Lanarkshire was supposed to be substituted for Turnhouse, I checked with the research department of the Library this morning and found that Turnhouse was still used for the calculation of the January payments. Does the hon. Lady realise that my constituents and others in central Scotland may have been denied payments as a result of that?

Ms Cunningham: That is clearly a matter of concern. I am grateful for the information. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that we are making.
Wind chill is a measure frequently used in weather forecasts on the broadcast media as a means of expressing how cold the wind will make us feel. As the British Medical Association noted in a press statement on 17 January this year, even a moderately windy day, with a wind speed of 9 mph and an air temperature of 5.5 deg C, produces an effect on the body equal to freezing point.
In its review, the Met Office confirmed that, if it were taken into account, the wind chill factor would have a significant impact particularly in the Scottish isles and the


far north of Scotland. I understand that it proposes to pilot a study of six weather stations in Scotland, which will cost only £600, to assess the appropriateness of including wind chill in the assessment of cold weather payments. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), noted in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the Government were consulting the Met Office on the issue. Will the Minister say today whether the proposed pilot scheme is to go ahead?
I understand that last Friday, Conservative Members behaved appallingly when they deliberately made long and unnecessary speeches to prolong the debate and to deny a Second Reading to the uncontroversial Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). That hardly leaves us with confidence that the Government will proceed with even moderate reforms.
Within the constraints of the existing scheme, the right to warmth campaign group recommended that the Government should consider using the climatic severity index to determine cold weather payments. The index measures the energy stress on a house rather than a body and, for that reason, may be a more effective measure than merely the wind chill factor and air temperature combined. It takes into account not only air temperature, wind and degree of sunshine but the standard of the house, the size and orientation of its windows, the degree of draught-proofing and so on. The weather factors can be obtained at the touch of a button, and the house factors can be found in any energy rating of a house such as the national home energy efficiency rating system, which local authorities now widely use to audit their stock. Those measures would improve the scheme. I should welcome the Minister's comments.
Unless, however—this is a crucial point—the inherent uncertainty is removed from the system, it will remain fundamentally flawed and will continue to act as a disincentive to turn up the heat. To alleviate the problems inherent in the existing scheme, the Scottish National party has long advocated an additional cold climate allowance. We are committed to introducing such an allowance paid from December to March—the coldest winter months. We recognise that, even within Scotland, there is significant climate variation. The payment would be £7°40 a week in central and southern Scotland and £11°15 in the colder north and the island communities. The payments would be made automatically to all those on a retirement pension, income support, family credit or housing benefit. By that means, our elderly and vulnerable citizens will be guaranteed the help that they need.
The policy that we advocate builds on the good practice of SNP-controlled local authorities such as the former Tayside regional council, which included my constituency. It successfully operated a "warm up for winter" campaign in the winter of 1994–95, with a comprehensive package of assistance worth £503,000 to provide extra help for the elderly and others in need. Even now, faced with a Scottish local government financial crisis on an unprecedented scale, Angus council has recently launched a cold weather initiative to provide free home care and lunch clubs for two months.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case and has shown the inadequacy of

the Government's provision for winter warmth. Will she, by contrast, point out what SNP-controlled Angus council has done in providing a two-month free home help and care package, and the fact that, during February and March, free lunch clubs will be provided for all pensioners and groups at risk in Angus. Those are practical measures that show what can be done to give warmth and sustenance to pensioners and other groups and how inadequate the Government's scheme is. We need a national cold weather payments scheme for the whole of Scotland. The sooner it is created, the better.

Ms Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving further details of the Angus scheme. It will obviously result in great savings for individuals within that period. It is worth a great deal of money to those in receipt of the benefits which accrue to them from living in Angus.
In Scotland, a cold climate allowance scheme along the lines that I have described would cost £170 million a year. That may sound like a lot of money, but it is not much when one considers that Treasury accounts show a £27 billion surplus paid from Scotland to the Exchequer since 1979. Although we are committed to introducing the allowance in the first year of an independent Scottish National party Government, we have also campaigned for such an allowance to be available UK-wide. Since 1984, the Scottish National party has introduced cold climate allowance Bills in Parliament on no fewer than six occasions, and I commend the relentless efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in her campaign over the years.
Such a scheme is not without precedent. Our closest European neighbour—the Republic of Ireland—operates a national fuel scheme, which provides an automatic payment of £5 per week to those in receipt of any one of 15 qualifying benefits, including the state pension. In comparison to Scotland, Ireland has next to no resources, yet its Government manage to provide guaranteed cold weather assistance to those in need. It is not a lack of resources that prevents a similar scheme operating in Scotland or the United Kingdom but a lack of political will on the part of the Government. I am sorry to say that such will is also noticeably absent among Labour Front Benchers.
Although we strongly believe in the necessity of such a scheme in the medium term, we recognise that any cold weather assistance scheme can be viewed only as a short-term solution to ease the existing situation, and must be accompanied by long-term solutions to address the root of the problem. For the most part, the root problem in Scotland is the standard of housing and it is that factor which most clearly explains why winter mortality rates in Scotland are about 16 per cent. higher than in the colder Scandinavian countries. One in 20 houses in Scotland are below the tolerable standard; one in eight suffer dampness; and one in five suffer the effects of condensation and, in some cases, mould growth. Those factors contribute to the fact that, on a scale of one to 10, the average energy rating of a Scottish home is only 3·
3.
Despite those staggering statistics, the Department of the Environment imposed a 31 per cent. reduction in funding for the home energy efficiency scheme last year, with the result that 20,000 fewer Scottish homes will receive basic insulation or draught-proofing measures. In


addition, this year the Secretary of State for Scotland imposed the most devastating cut to date in the housing budget, forcing local authorities to use 75 per cent. of their capital receipts for debt repayment and effectively cutting the budget by 30 per cent. in real terms. Those cuts leave little scope for the improvement of deteriorating housing conditions, which are widely recognised as being a major cause of fuel poverty.
Considered alongside the limitations of the cold weather payments scheme, those cuts reveal the Government's complete lack of a strategy to address both the causes and the effects of fuel poverty. Many of the problems of fuel poverty are associated with poor insulation and housing standards. It stands to reason that a commitment to upgrade and expand the housing stock and a determined effort to tackle dampness and disrepair would go some way towards eradicating fuel poverty and could reduce the number of elderly people who needlessly die every winter. Eradicating the misery caused by fuel poverty is not only a moral obligation for elected politicians, but makes sound economic and environmental sense. The connection between fuel poverty, bad housing and ill health is obvious.
The Scottish National party considers that the right to a warm, dry and affordable home is a fundamental human right. Eradicating the misery of fuel poverty requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes while alleviating the effects. At the bare minimum, it is for those responsible for the social security of our citizens to ensure that assistance is available to all those who need it. That is clearly not achieved by the existing system, which leaves too many needy people without assistance and discourages people from adequately heating their homes.
In conclusion, I quote the observation made recently by Energy Action Scotland:
The next millennium is only lour years away and yet Scotland still has an estimated 800,000 households experiencing fuel poverty while the country is rich in fossil fuels and sources of renewable energy.
Scotland has more than enough fuel to meet the need. The Chancellor will rake in £3·5 billion in North sea oil and gas revenues in the current year. What we in Scotland lack is the power to ensure that our vast resources are used to eradicate poverty in Scotland. The prevalence of fuel poverty in energy-rich Scotland is testament to the fact that the cold weather payments scheme is utterly failing to meet essential need. The Government are failing the Scottish people.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). All hon. Members would agree with her objectives: we all want Scotland's elderly and vulnerable residents and others who are infirm and require additional heat to be looked after in the best possible way that the country can afford.
The hon. Lady was less than gracious about cold weather payments. Between 1964 and 1970, there were no cold weather payments under the then socialist Government; and between 1974 and 1979 there were no cold weather payments under a socialist Government. The Scottish National party and even the Liberal Democrats

are fairly closely allied to socialism today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought we had a new Lib-Lab pact to hound the Government, albeit without success.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Because the right hon. Gentleman has such a reputation in the House for decency, the record should show that even he could not keep a straight face when making that last comment.

Sir Hector Monro: I am simply thinking of the practical results of what is going on among Opposition Members—they seem to be hounding away together, trying to defeat the Government.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross gave scant details of the cost of what she had in mind or, indeed, of the cost of the present system. In fact, in 1995–96 there were 7·2 million payments at a cost of £62 million, which shows that the Government provided a substantial amount of money for cold weather payments—and rightly so. I am strongly in favour of cold weather payments, but those figures show that, if the scheme was extended to a global system, such as the hon. Lady mentioned, without first calculating the cost, it could run to many hundreds of millions of pounds. She did not indicate from where that money would come and what might be dispensed with in exchange.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic courtesy in giving way to me. The statistics he quoted plainly show the extent of poverty among elderly people.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is remarking on my speech and I wish to point out that I clearly put a cost on our proposed scheme—£170 million per year.

Sir Hector Monro: It seems to me that it would cost considerably more than £170 million to run the cold weather scheme continuously from the end of November through to March, given that it cost £62 million last year for a comparatively short winter, albeit one in which conditions were extremely severe around Christmas.
I want to concentrate on the importance of removing anomalies, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Meteorological Office carried out a comprehensive review of the number of weather stations that resulted in an increase in their number from 55 to 70 and thus improved local sensitivity. I was involved in these matters when I was a Minister and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) was responsible for cold weather payments.
We all know that Eskdalemuir is the premier meteorological station in Scotland. It is located in the highest part of my constituency, yet the triggering station for my constituency was not, as one might expect, at Eskdalemuir, but at Cargenbridge near the ICI factory to the west of Dumfries, which is not in my constituency and is on very low ground. That meant that payments to my constituents were triggered by temperature measurements at a site about 100 ft above sea level. Many of my constituents live at a much higher level and therefore missed out on payments. They found it equally provocative that payments to people living in the area of


southern Scotland stretching from the Borders to the east coast were triggered by Eskdalemuir in my constituency, yet they were not allowed to use measurements at that station.
I am glad that that problem has been sorted out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea changed the triggering station so that payments for the high ground in my constituency are now triggered by Eskdalemuir. We are rightly fine-tuning the system to ensure that payments for the higher ground in Scotland are triggered by the nearest possible meteorological station.
As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, the £8·50 addition is triggered by the seven consecutive days forecast as well as by recorded temperatures. That is done automatically and there is no need to claim. Once a householder is on the benefits list for cold weather payments, payments are made automatically and no further action is needed. That is an important step in the right direction.
I am very glad that we have started to fine-tune the system and I believe that we should continue to do so for as long as possible, so that we make the most accurate possible meteorological map of the country relative to height above sea level.
Usually, the higher one is the colder it is, but that does not always apply. Some years ago, I learned that the coldest part of the United Kingdom is not, as one might expect, in Scotland, but on the north-east coast of England between Newcastle and Norfolk, where there is a fiendishly cold chill from the north-east wind whipping across the North sea. We must take local conditions into account, and aim to make our map as accurate as possible.
I am sure that Opposition Members will call for cold weather payments to be much enhanced. One would love that to happen if it were financially prudent and if the Government could do it. If Opposition Members call for that, the House has every right to hear from whence that money will come, bearing in mind that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that there will be no additional expenditure. It would be wrong of Opposition Members to say, "We want another £100 million on cold weather payments," without saying how they would provide it.
No doubt the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will give us an idea, but I very much doubt it, because I heard him make some astonishing erroneous statements on the radio this week, which made me wince, even at 7 o'clock in the morning. I hope that he will not say things like, "The Conservative Government will put VAT on food," when they most certainly will not do so. That is the sort of thing that he is saying, now that he is becoming a professional operator in the Labour party policy making that attacks alleged Government policies that are not in place.

Mr. William McKelvey: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two things? First, perhaps the windfall tax will pay for the wind-chill factor to be taken into account in the new formula. That is a possibility, certainly for the first year of a Labour Government, and we would all welcome it. Secondly, he talks about VAT on coal. In 1995, the House voted against the Government's proposal to impose the second tranche

of the increase in VAT on domestic fuel. Scotland was immediately penalised for that, because the shortfall went on the cost of whisky.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the debate continues, may I say that I hope that there will not be a wide-ranging debate on taxation, which I would not regard as being in order?

Sir Hector Monro: I would love to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but in view of your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not do so.
The Government deserve a great deal of credit for introducing cold weather payments, which were not available under Labour Governments, and for doing their best to fine-tune the system to bring it up to date with the latest thinking of the Meteorological Office. Although we want cold weather payments to be extended and old and vulnerable people to be helped as much as possible, we should not denigrate what has been achieved.

Mr. John McAllion: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on being conscious at 7 o'clock in the morning. That is a notable achievement for a man of his age, and wincing at my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is even better.

Sir Hector Monro: Any farmer listens to the farming programme at 6.10 every morning.

Mr. McAllion: That is a very good put-down; I accept it entirely. The right hon. Gentleman normally speaks very well.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on initiating this important and serious debate which, even if it is not gathering much attention in the House at the moment, will receive a lot of attention in Scotland. People who live in Scotland and suffer from the cold weather there will be interested to hear what Parliament says about it this morning.
I am astounded that, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Dumfries, not one Conservative Member of Parliament from Scotland has bothered to attend the debate. There is no Scottish Office Minister on the Treasury Bench—Scottish Office Ministers have sent one of their English colleagues along to deal with the Scots, much in the way that Edward I tried to deal with us a long time ago. Scottish people will notice that, on the eve of a general election, Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament show a complete lack of interest in a very important subject such as this; that is to be deplored.
I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfries for talking about socialist Governments. It brought a nostalgic tear to many an eye on the Opposition Back Benches.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is an historian.

Mr. McAllion: I am not an historian; I am an optimist. We may again see a socialist Government like the one that was in power from 1945 to 1951, although I suspect that that may be some way off.
I shall discuss some of the key characteristics of the current cold weather scheme organised by the Government, and start by discussing who qualifies for payments.
When the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross introduced the debate, she gave us a list of the people who qualify under the present scheme, describing them as perhaps the most vulnerable people in society—those in receipt of income support and income-related jobseeker's allowance, people who receive a pensioner's premium or a disability premium and people with children under five. Those are important groups, but they are not the only vulnerable groups in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Many vulnerable groups are currently excluded from cold weather payments.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries referred to the figures for last year. I have looked up the figures. If we study those for 1990–91 to the present day, including those given by the Under-Secretary of State yesterday during Question Time, we find that about 20 million cold weather payments have been made in the past six and a half years—an average of about 3 million a year. Some of those will have been repeat payments so, each winter, fewer than 3 million people in Scotland receive cold weather payments—but every poverty group will tell us that more than 10 million people are living in poverty. The vast majority never qualify under the cold weather payments scheme devised by the present Government.
Statistics published by Ministers tell the same story. Every year, they publish a document called "Households Below Average Income," which examines the income of all groups in society. It says that, between 1979—the year, unfortunately, the Conservatives came to power—and 1993–94, the last year for which figures are available, those in full-time work or self-employment declined as a percentage of the population. They decreased from 71 per cent. of the population in 1979 to only 59 per cent. in 1993–94. The figure is probably lower today.
Meanwhile, the unemployed—or, as the Government describe them, "others not in work"—increased from 8 per cent. of the population in 1979 to 17 per cent. in 1993–94. The unemployed are now the fastest-growing section of the population. Some of them, of course, receive a disability premium, and some have children under five, but many do not have such qualifications and are not eligible for the Government's cold weather payments.
The unemployed are the only group in society whose incomes, after taking housing costs into consideration, were lower in 1993–94 than they were in 1979. The poorest and most vulnerable section of the population is excluded from the cold weather payments scheme. The Minister should reflect on that. The scheme is not comprehensive, does not cover enough poor people and leaves far too many of them at risk of having their power supply cut off.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries claimed that the scheme was generous. He mentioned the year 1995–96, when £62 million was paid out under it. He did not mention the previous year, when only £77,000 was paid out, or the year before that, when the figure was £12·4 million. The scheme is nowhere near as generous as Ministers pretend. They tend to pick the year when most payments were made and give the impression that

every year the Government dole out £62 million under the cold weather payments scheme, when nothing of the kind happens.
About £164 million has been paid out by the Government over a period of six and a half years, which works out at £20 million a year on average. I know that the sum of £20 million cannot be dismissed—it is a great deal of public money—but we should compare it with some of the public spending priorities that the Government have announced recently.
The Government spend just under £70 million on cadet forces. We understand that that sum is about to be doubled—another £70 million a year is to be allocated to make kids go to school and learn how to shoot rifles. That has suddenly become a bigger priority than looking after people who are vulnerable to the cold. A sum of £60 million is to be spent on a royal yacht. A luxury yacht for the monarchy is a greater priority for the Government than looking after the poor, the old and the frail who are suffering all round the country.
The Child Poverty Action Group has pointed out that, since 1979, £31·8 billion has been given away in tax cuts to the better-off, and almost one third of that sum—more than £10 billion—has been handed across to the top 1 per cent. of earners in the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that any Government can justify handing £10 billion over to the richest in society while claiming that they cannot afford to keep the poor warm in their own homes. That makes no sense.
The Government's own family expenditure survey has shown that the fuel bills of the rich are falling, while the fuel bills of the poorest are rising faster than those of any other section of the population. The bottom 10 per cent. in terms of national income spend 10 per cent. of their total income on trying to keep their homes warm. It is very different for the rich.
The point about the state of the housing stock in Scotland was well made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross. That is why it is a tragedy that the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland could not be bothered to be present and take part in the debate. Housing is central to whether people can keep warm in winter.
We know from the national house condition survey, which the Government commissioned and published, that the state of Scotland's housing stock is a disgrace. There is dampness and mould growth in more than half a million homes. As a result, asthma among children is on the increase, and there are excess winter deaths every year. What a terrible phrase that is. There were 7,000 excess winter deaths in Scotland, according to Shelter: 7,000 people who died not from natural causes, but because it was cold and they could not afford to keep themselves warm.
I remember attending one of the Scottish Grand Committees—the one in Hamilton, I think—where groups were lobbying hon. Members as they came in. Leaflets were handed out by the Edinburgh Tenants Federation, which stated:
Our world has cold, damp homes which need new windows and new healing systems …
Our world has health problems caused by cold damp homes …
In our world we need public investment in public sector homes to improve health, to reduce benefit dependancy by putting people back to work, to raise educational standards.


Our world has politicians too stupid to see the need—are you one of them?
I hope that I am not one of them, but I suspect that there are a number of stupid politicians on the Conservative Benches, who cannot see the simple logic of the Edinburgh tenants' case.
Since that meeting, the Government have announced a 28 per cent. cut in housing investment in Scotland. There is a 75 per cent. rule which states that, of the receipts gathered by the local authorities across Scotland—about £227 million in the past year—75 per cent. must be diverted to reducing local authority debt, and taken away from investment in housing.
In other words, £170 million has been withdrawn from investment in new heating systems and double glazing to keep people warm in their homes. Shelter reckons that, if spent through the public sector, £170 million would make more than 72,000 homes in Scotland warm, dry places where people could survive, rather than places where they are likely to die.
I realise that there are other options. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross put forward on behalf of her party an alternative that should be debated seriously by all parties. I accept the comment of the right hon. Member for Dumfries that, if we speak about improving the scheme, we must specify where the money is to come from.
Britain is a wealthy country. My hon. Friends are fond of saying that, through the public sector, we spend £300 billion every year. We have a £700 billion economy. There is far more in the private sector than in the public sector. At some point, the House will have to make up its mind where its priorities lie. Do they lie in stopping the poor dying from cold in the winter, or in giving the rich more to spend on luxury yachts and luxury life styles? That is what the debate is about and, like the right hon. Member for Dumfries, I look forward to the return of a socialist Government who will do something about it.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate, and on the excellence of her speech and the arguments that she deployed.
I shall intrude on the time of the House for only a minute to amplify a point that the hon. Lady was kind enough to allow me to touch on in an intervention.
The Minister was kind enough to meet the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and me in advance of last year's review. Subsequently, there have been some greatly appreciated—let me put that clearly on the record—improvements as a result of more sensitive monitoring locations for the highlands and islands. There are, however, other anomalies, which arise from those changes which I bring formally to the Minister's attention for further consideration in due course. If he could indicate at the appropriate time that that will happen, it would be appreciated.
A written parliamentary question from me last year elicited the response that, in the history of the scheme, the island of Tiree had never triggered payments. As a result,

a substantial chunk of my constituency was linked to different monitoring stations at Loch Glascarnoch and at Aultbea. Hansard will love me for my map references this morning.
The island of Tiree continues to be used as a monitoring station for the Isle of Skye. Although someone looking at a map might think that an island such as Tiree bears some resemblance to the Isle of Skye, anyone who has looked at them from ground level knows that there is a vast climatic difference between an island that boasts, for example, the Cuillin hills and a rather severe climate, and Tiree, which is firmly located in the gulf stream. Will the Minister look into that? It would make more sense for Skye to be linked to a mainland monitoring point, or to the monitoring point that is available at Waterstein on the Isle of Skye itself.
My next concern is the town of Inverness. Parts of Inverness have been securing cold weather payments over the recent difficult period of weather, but others have not. Because of the postal code structure, they are linked to different monitoring stations. That causes fury in Inverness, because people who may live only one mile apart, and who experience essentially identical climatic conditions, find that some are eligible and receive payments, while others are ineligible and receive none. Would it not make more sense to use a common monitoring point?
Finally, it would be more sensible to link mid-Ross and places such as Achnasheen—that will add to my popularity with Hansard—which are presently linked with Aultbea on the west coast, with Loch Glascarnoch as that is geographically closer. If we remain tied to postal codes, anomalies will be inescapable. That is why I echo the plea of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross for a more imaginative system of allocating cold weather payments. Despite the efforts to improve or tinker with the present system, people will always be on the wrong side of a line or will be linked to the wrong weather station given any set of climactic conditions. I would appreciate a positive response from the Minister.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I am glad of the opportunity to speak this morning, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing a debate on cold weather payments. This is our third opportunity in recent weeks to discuss the issue—we discussed it in a Delegated Legislation Committee and, a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) introduced the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, which the Government deliberately talked out.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross highlighted two issues: first, the fact that we must consider cold weather payments in the context of poverty and, secondly, the question of political will. The Government lack the political will not only to address the problem, but to take it seriously. The problem of poverty in Scotland is obvious. In a so-called civilised society, in 1997, people must choose between heating and eating from November to February or March every year. More than half a million Scottish people claim income support. If we add dependants to that figure, we are talking about 1 million people—20 per cent. of the Scottish population—who depend solely on income support. That is a scandal; anyone can see that.
According to Government figures, 35 per cent. of Scottish households rely on one or more means-tested benefit. One in five of all non-pensioner households in Scotland have no one in work. It is scandalous—and it is clear from those statistics, supplied by Government sources, that poverty is an immensely important issue for every political party in Britain. Cold weather payments should be viewed in that context.

Mr. Bill Walker: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Is he saying that it is wrong to provide more public money, means-tested or otherwise, and that the Government should change their policy?

Mr. McLeish: I am conscious of the feet that the hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber, and I regret allowing him to intervene. He misses the point completely. The Government's economic failure has resulted in the largest increase in poverty in a generation. There has been an explosion in the number of people who depend on the state, and the Government have sought to use taxpayers' money to support them. We object to that morally, socially, politically and economically. That view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we are trying to address the problem.
I have highlighted the extent of poverty in Scotland, but another factor is even worse. Some 100,000 pensioners in Scotland who are eligible for income support do not claim it. The Government do not pursue that issue; they have not introduced a take up benefits campaign. Despite the fact that nearly 10 per cent. of Scottish pensioners are below the breadline, as defined by the Government, they cannot claim cold weather payments.
I shall explain why cold weather payments are necessary. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, income poverty is linked to fuel poverty and poor housing. Government must institute a practical programme. Fortunately, within weeks—certainly within months—a Labour Government will start to address the issue seriously. The Government use data matching to intensify their attack on fraud; we must ensure that that technology is used to try to link pensioners who do not receive income support with resources. That would allow more Scottish pensioners to access not only income support, but cold weather payments. That must be a priority for any Government with a sense of justice—even a Government as mean and miserable as this one.
We must remember that the Government imposed value added tax on fuel. They told people that they would have to pay more for fuel not because their incomes had increased, but because they wanted to raise revenue. The Labour party in government has pledged to reduce VAT from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.—the lowest possible rate under European law.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not a cynical ploy any more, then?

Mr. McLeish: I shall ignore the hon. Lady's sedentary intervention.
Another key issue is home insulation. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to poorly insulated and damp housing. Low-income

households may spend up to 10 per cent. of their incomes on fuel, compared with middle income households who spend 4 per cent. Home insulation would prove a significant practical benefit for everyone. Labour intends to use the environmental task force, funded by the windfall levy on privatised utilities, to ensure that people are employed to insulate pensioners' homes.
Our strategy will include a review of the cold weather payments scheme. It is instructive that hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have referred to injustices, anomalies and inconsistencies caused by the current system. It must be reviewed. The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred to the weather stations that are used to trigger payments in different localities. The Government have improved the situation slightly by increasing the number of weather stations from 52 to nearly 70, but some fine tuning must be done, and there is consensus in the House about the Department not dragging its feet.
Linked to the review is the issue of wind chill factor, which was raised in the recent Meteorological Office report to the Government about cold weather payments. The Government are always keen to draw attention to the negative parts of that report. There are clear problems with the wind chill factor. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, the Meteorological Office offered the Government a trial in Scotland comprising six weather stations at a cost of £600—that is not a large sum when compared with a social security budget of nearly £100 billion. When given an opportunity to take the matter seriously, why is the Minister dragging his feet?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): It is utterly baffling that the hon. Gentleman should make that comment. Before Christmas, I made it clear to the Standing Committee of which we are both members that the Government will continue the annual review, investigate the wind chill factor and conduct the trials mentioned in the report. The cost is rather more than the mere £600 for the data, but the Government have promised to examine the matter this summer as part of the ordinary annual review. That has been our position for some time.

Mr. McLeish: It is slightly warmer in the summer. If the people of Britain were to elect this Government again—that is highly improbable—they would consider the matter during the summer, the tests would not be run in Scotland until the winter, and a report would not be published until next year.

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mr. McLeish: I want to finish my point.
I want to know from the Minister whether the Government will now accept the Meteorological Office's offer and whether the trials will start immediately. Will the Government then urgently consider the implications for cold weather payments of the results of the trials?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is blathering. We have said yes. He should be aware of the fact that the annual review will lead to statutory instruments being laid by the time the autumn scheme comes into effect. The process of examining this problem will be complete by


the time it is necessary to lay the statutory instruments for next winter. If it is practical and sensible to introduce a wind chill factor, we will consider it.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. If I understand him correctly, the trials are now under way in six stations in Scotland.

Mr. Evans: It is a matter of modelling existing data: it is not a question of opening six weather stations to perform an experiment.

Mr. McLeish: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening again. The Meteorological Office's report suggested that a trial would take place involving six weather stations in Scotland—Scotland was the key target—at a cost of £600. Are those trials—in whatever form; either practical or theoretical and based on modelling—under way today: yes or no?

Mr. Evans: They will be under way to the extent that they will be complete by the time it is necessary to make a decision next summer.

Mr. McLeish: The answer to my questions was no, the trials are not going on—so the Government are dragging their feet.
In this debate, insult has been added to injury. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross laid out her case. We have put cold weather payments in the context of poverty, and we have put the wind chill issue in the context of cold weather payments. Even the small concession that we hoped the Government had made does not exist.
The Government are not interested in poverty or in giving cold weather payments priority, and now we learn from the Minister's interventions that no trial is taking place on the wind chill factor. As they would say in the other place: I rest my case. We argue that the trials should be carried out urgently. However small their impact may be, that would send a positive message to pensioners' organisations and to families living in poverty that the Government are anxious to improve cold weather payments. I suspect that the Government will not act. A Labour Government will soon be in office, and we will review the cold weather payments scheme as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am aware that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) wants to speak, so I shall try to be brief.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing a debate on this important subject, and I thank hon. Members who have participated in it.
The Scottish National party has pursued this issue for many years. I should like to point out to the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that the six Bills that were introduced by Dr. Gordon Wilson or me had the full support of the House and the whole country. Every part of the country and every party was represented. We have always argued that this matter must be considered in an overall context. This debate is about cold weather

payments in Scotland, but I am as worried about a pensioner in Elgin as I am about a pensioner in Ealing, Perth or Preston. We are genuinely concerned about the implications of how we deal with fuel poverty throughout the United Kingdom. None the less, this issue has a particular importance for Scotland.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), whose Bill on the wind-chill factor I sponsored, had hoped to attend the debate, but I spoke to her yesterday evening and she has caught the dreaded lurgy that many of us have suffered. She gave her apologies, because she had wanted to be here.
I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. This is a matter of conscience and morality. Every legislator must search his or her conscience and decide how funding should be allocated.
I go back many years on this subject: when I first raised it in the House in the 1970s, there was a Government with a different perspective. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) laughs wryly at the memory of that socialist Government. In the 1970s, I was accused of scaremongering: people said that I should not raise this subject because it would frighten people who lived on low incomes, especially pensioners. I was then a much younger Member of Parliament—like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: indeed, we came into the House at the same time—and I was new to the procedures of the House. It took a long time for this issue to come on to the political agenda in the House of Commons and in the other place—Lord Gray of Contin works hard on behalf of Energy Action Scotland and has raised the issues in the other place.
The problem was not taken seriously until much later, when people began to realise that excess winter deaths were related to cold weather and to the poor quality of our housing stock. We have made massive strides forward and the problem is now recognised. I do not deride the cold weather payments scheme, although it could be much improved.
I refer the Minister to the 1991 United Nations demographic book. Excess winter deaths were earlier called an obscenity. The study examined various aspects of life styles, and the book shows that Sweden had a 14 per cent. excess winter death rate, Norway had a rate of 10 per cent., Germany 12 per cent. and Great Britain 31 per cent. That is a massive figure of excess winter deaths. Yesterday, I referred to the comparison between Scotland and Finland: Scotland has a 16 per cent. excess winter death rate, whereas Finland has a rate of 9 per cent.
Those statistics are frightening. They involve our elderly people, our disabled people, unemployed people and people who live in poor quality housing, all of whom are the most vulnerable members of our society. In cold snaps we probably turn our heating up or put it on for a bit longer, but we often forget that many of those families cannot do that. For many people, winter means living, eating and sleeping in one room, because they can afford to heat only that one room. The Government claim to value family life. What kind of family life can people have if they are forced to live, eat and sleep in one room?
The situation was exacerbated by the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel. I noticed that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not like my sedentary intervention, but, when the Scottish National


party tabled an amendment to reduce VAT to 5 per cent., we were told by the shadow Financial Secretary—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—that it was a cynical ploy. We have also argued that standing charges should be removed from those on the lowest incomes, particularly pensioners. I am sure that all our mailbags are full of letters making such points.
Let me repeat that we want to hear from the Minister how the Government are dealing with the offer from the Meteorological Office, which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross raised in her competent, wide-ranging and definitive speech. The Meteorological Office has offered to carry out a pilot study of the wind chill factor in Scotland, and I was not sure what the Minister's response was. One of my hon. Friends said, "I do not think that I would buy a second-hand car from this gentleman."
What the Minister said was confusing. He said that the cost would be considerably more than £600, but how much will it be? When will the pilot study be conducted? I can assure the Minister—living, as I do, in Lossiemouth, where we have a substantial wind chill factor—that there would be no point in conducting it in June, July and August; it should be carried out during the cold winter months. What is happening to that experiment? The offer seemed very logical to me, and I do not understand why the Government have not taken it up. The Met Office has also proposed the use of postcodes as local triggers. Every speaker this morning has mentioned the anomalies in the present system.
This has been a long-running issue, and, while I do not deny that improvements have been made, we need a long-term strategy. We need to improve our housing stock, for instance. The poorest people usually live in the poorest housing, and are the least well insulated. Energy efficiency should also be improved; the home energy efficiency scheme has been cut substantially Furthermore, we should keep these matters in mind not just during the winter months but throughout the year. In July, members of the all-party warm homes group—of which I am convener—went along to the Department of the Environment, complete with a polar bear which nearly melted in the July heat, to point out that the issue should be considered all the year round rather than just between December and March, and that we needed to find ways in which to improve the lot of our people.
Our resources should be used properly. Scotland is an energy-rich nation; why should so many people die of cold there? People in my area look out on to the Moray Firth and the oil and gas platforms that bring so much money to the Exchequer. What a contrast they must see!
The SNP also has policies relating to the redistribution of wealth—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order The debate is about cold weather payments, not the redistribution of wealth.

Mrs. Ewing: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not mean to be out of order. I was trying to put the matter in a general context, because I do not think it can be viewed in isolation. I was merely going to say that my party is not afraid to consider the redistribution of wealth through, for instance, tax policies.
The Government must deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend in her excellent speech. We are prepared to discuss our own views and recommendations with

them, and I hope that we shall hear a positive response today. The entire debate has been underpinned by the argument in favour of an egalitarian society and valuing people's lives.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate on an important subject that must be discussed. It is not just a party matter; it is not the domain of just one Opposition party. It concerns everyone, and the Government are not doing enough. There have been too many partisan comments today.
Local government has introduced many innovations in an attempt to prevent the tragedy of death and impoverishment. My local council, when I was its leader—having taken the seat that had belonged to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—introduced double glazing and central heating in every council house, which is now being provided in much of Scotland. In my council area there is heat leasing, because the Government will not give the council enough money to introduce other schemes to deal with bad housing fabric and inadequate insulation. Everyone is trying to innovate, and we should not become involved in a Dutch auction to keep rents down in order to challenge the opposition when that means that homes cannot be properly heated.
The real problem is the system that the Government have introduced. People are becoming more aware of the fall in temperatures, and the cost of trying to maintain decent heating. The seven-day system is entirely inadequate. In my area—as I have told the Minister, I checked this with the House of Commons research department this morning—Turnhouse was still being used rather than Salsburgh, which was specified in the regulations that we discussed on 18 December. It was claimed that, over a seven-day period in January, the average temperature was 1·2 deg C, so no payment was triggered in my area.
In November, there were high winds—so high that they tore five windows out of the summerhouse in my garden—and temperatures dropped sharply, but the average did not fall below zero in a seven-day period. In Turnhouse, it was 0·5 deg, so again no one received a payment. That is nonsensical: if the wind-chill factor had been taken into account, as we were told in the debate on 17 January, 1·5 deg would have become minus 6·5 deg in Yeovilton, and it would have been similar in my part of central Scotland. As I have said, this is not a party matter; nor is it merely a Scottish matter. I am as concerned about Yeovilton residents as I am about people in my area.
According to Age Concern, if the wind chill factor had been taken into account, only £20 million would have been added to the bill for cold weather payments. That does not seem much to me.
I was shocked by the estimate given by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross, who said that between 34 and 41 per cent. of elderly people who could receive income support do not claim it. According to research that I have consulted, the percentage is much lower, but it is at least 10 per cent., which means that as many as 1,000 to 1,200 people in every constituency in the United Kingdom are not claiming. More than 1,000 are not claiming in my area. Age Concern also estimates that


50,000 elderly people in the UK have died because of cold-related factors. If we accept the 10 per cent. estimate, that means that 5,000 have died in Scotland—far too many.
We must get together at local and national level to work out a cold climate allowance. I hope that the next Government—a Labour Government—will find a way of obviating the problem of deaths in cold weather.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I have only a short time in which to reply to this full and detailed debate. During the three minutes in which I was able to speak on Friday, I did not have time to deal with the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, which has featured in today's discussion.
I am grateful for the recognition that practical improvements have been made. I know that some people want much more money to be spent, and others want a different type of scheme; but we have attempted each year to "fine-tune"—the expression that has been used—the modern version of the scheme, which has operated since 1991, and to improve the links with particular postcodes and weather stations.
The hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) came to see me last spring to make representations about their constituencies. As a result of that discussion, we introduced two new weather stations in Ross, Cromarty and Skye. I stress that any hon. Member is most welcome to see me if he or she has detailed points. Of course, any representations made in writing or otherwise will be most carefully considered as part of the annual review.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made some important points. He said that the scheme was an achievement of the Conservative Government and that, if we moved to some other scheme, the costs would be considerable. He welcomed the fact that we were sorting out the anomalies, and mentioned one involving Eskdale.

Mrs. Ewing: Eskdalemuir.

Mr. Evans: I am obliged.
My right hon. Friend mentioned an anomaly in Eskdalemuir, which arose before I was in my present position, but which has been happily resolved. He also made a forceful point—in relation to which I was a little puzzled by the comment of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham)—on the importance of forecasting. That is one of the crucial elements of the present scheme. People do not have to wait for seven days when the temperature is below the limit. When the Meteorological Office in their region forecasts that the temperature will be below the limit for seven days, they know that the payment will come, normally shortly thereafter, probably before their fuel bill.
As that is done automatically, without a claim, by computers, which use postcodes as a convenient way of dividing the country by local area, it is possible to run an automatic system that gives comfort, because people

know that, if it is advertised locally that the temperature will be low for seven days, and if they are in one of the qualifying groups, they will receive their payment. That is an important feature, which I stress.
Some criticisms were made of the scheme. Figures were quoted in respect of quality housing, for example. I appreciate that there is a long-running argument about the quality of Scottish and British housing. Through the home energy efficiency payment scheme, however, the Government have spent £350 million in Great Britain since 1991 and have improved the insulation of about 10 per cent. of total housing stock. That is a dramatic improvement, because insulation is the other side of paying for heating bills. I think that everyone agrees that, the better insulated the home, the more likely it is that people will be both more comfortable and have a more economical system.
Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), mentioned excess winter mortality. The figures are shocking and a matter of concern, but there is no simple, easy scientific explanation for the link. The hon. Member for Moray did not mention the fact, if it is a question of cold weather, that the figures are even higher in Portugal and Israel. In the past five years, they have been higher in England than in Scotland, so, although that important scientific matter should be investigated, it is a little unfortunate and overstates the case to put the figures quite as high as certain hon. Members did.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Minister seriously saying that, in his opinion, the excess mortality, a well-observed scientific fact through the winter months, bears no relation to the coldness of the climate and ability of certain people to afford heating?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that it is not possible to correlate this in the simplistic fashion in which that has been done by certain hon. Members. For example, there is no doubt that cold climate has an impact on winter mortality—no one challenges that for a moment—but waiting at a bus stop on an icy day is likely to have more effect than many other factors, and obviously there also is the incidence of disease and such matters. It is a matter of concern, but it is being studied and there is no consensus on it.

Mr. Connarty: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Evans: No. I am going to move on, because I have noted well over two dozen points, which I want to answer quickly in the time left to me.
The basic problem of eligibility was raised by various Opposition Members, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries put his finger directly on the difficulty: if we increase the groups, we will have to pay much more money. Let me make that clear. If, during a winter of last winter's severity, we extended the present system to all recipients of income support, the additional cost would be £100 million; if we extended it to all pensioners, the cost would be £150 million to £200 million. Therefore, there would be a £300 million to £350 million extra cost on a winter of last winter's severity, which, it is fair to say, was one of the more severe.
It is all very well for the Scottish National party to make pledges in Scotland. It is not likely to have responsibility for the United Kingdom Government. It pledged £170 million of expenditure, apparently in Scotland, but, again, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, there will be anguish in parts of England, particularly on the east coast, which sometimes has colder weather than Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: When we discuss these matters, it is important that we study all the facts. My hon. Friend will know that the Royal Air Force built bases at Dalcross, Lossiemouth and Kinloss because of the weather factor—the best in the United Kingdom—and because of the fact that, on the east coast, for instance at Binbrook in Lincolnshire, the wind chill factor is bound to be much higher. The RAF would not be able to fly there at given times of the year.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes important points, with which I respectfully agree.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Evans: May I make a little progress before giving way? Let me pursue the matter.
I have discussed the problem of fine-tuning the present scheme, but I have not yet come to the wind chill factor, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has mentioned. I notice that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross referred to last Friday's debate and said that the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill was uncontroversial. I point out to her that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) spoke for 47 minutes. I had three minutes to reply. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross says that the Bill is uncontroversial, but it appears to be controversial with the Labour Front-Bench team.
The Bill—I will explain what is wrong with it at the moment, because that will illustrate the difficulties with bringing the wind chill factor into account—is too vague to cost with any particular accuracy.

Mrs. Ewing: rose—

Mr. Evans: Let me continue, please.
The difficulty with the Bill is that the cost, again on a winter of last winter's severity, would be several hundreds of millions of pounds. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) explain what the Labour party would do. He did not promise to support the Bill. It is easy for Back Benchers to raise expectations, but the difficulty is that those who pretend to government have to make some pretence that they have some ability to add up.
The difficulty over the Bill is simple. It sounds a good idea—we are all used to the graphics that appear on televised weather forecasts—to bring the wind chill factor into account. The Government are aware of that argument. That is why last summer we commissioned the

Meteorological Office to report to us specifically on the issue and to review the state of the arguments. We not only obtained that advice, but published it and placed it in the House of Commons Library. Paragraph 9.7 of the advice summarises as follows:
for much of the country the additional domestic heating requirements generated as a result of the effects of exposure of houses to wind are too small and too highly variable
to be incorporated into the scheme. The difficulty is that that is the basis of the advice.
The difficulty with the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill is that it instructs the independent adjudicating officers, first, to take wind chill into account in respect of assessing the necessary temperature. It does not tell them how to do it. If that had come to pass in the middle of this winter, the only result would have been chaos, because the Bill did not explain how such an assessment was to be done, and there is no consensus on how it should be done.
Secondly, and more seriously, the Bill instructs the independent adjudicating service to take into account forecasts of seven days. That cannot be done to the requisite standard with the present state of technology. That is why the Government are commissioning further research on the matter—to find out whether this is practical and sensible.
The Bill is wholly unnecessary, because, under section 138 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, we have the statutory power—the power that we use to make the regulations each year—to fine-tune the scheme. We are able, if we wish and if we are persuaded that it is right and proper, to take that into account. The difficulty is whether it is right and appropriate to do that. [Interruption.] I have tried to introduce an element of clarity to show the absurdity of the proposal. I shall now explain the matter, because it is obvious that the hon. Member for Moray is impatient.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making the speech that he did not make on Friday. Is it in order to reply to this debate with such a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Evans: Hon. Members have repeatedly mentioned wind chill and it is important to explain that we are studying that matter. Officials will ensure that the necessary inquiries are made in time for the matter to be properly assessed by next autumn, when the orders have to be laid.
There has been a misunderstanding. The Meteorological Office data form only a small part of the analysis. The difficult questions relate to what scientists recommend on the way in which wind chill affects buildings and whether that can be measured in a way that will enable it to be sensibly incorporated in a practical—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now move to the debate on elective ventilation for kidney transplants.

Kidney Transplants

Sir John Hannam: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise an important issue of public health—the transplantation of kidneys and other organs, and the decline in the number of organ donors which is being experienced in the 1990s after a steady rise in the 1980s. Some 20 years ago, in the 1970s, there was a great deal of optimism about an abundance of kidneys for transplants—we just had to go out and get them. Some 20 years later, it is plain that such optimism was very wide of the mark.
During the 1980s, various factors combined to increase the number of kidney transplants from 814 in 1981 to 1,736 in 1990. Despite that, the waiting list of patients doubled from 2,000 to about 4,000, and the latest estimate is of more than 5,000. We need about 3,500 transplants a year to meet the demand. Since 1990, the number of transplants each year has fallen despite intensive efforts by the Government and health authorities to obtain kidney donors. The current refusal rate in the United Kingdom for organ donation is 25 to 30 per cent., but that is radically corrected if relatives know that a potential donor had wished to donate organs.
The excellent report by a working party of the British Transplantation Society makes several suggestions for improving the situation. However, I should like to concentrate on a method that was introduced in the Exeter transplant unit in 1988 but which had to be abandoned in 1984 after ethical objections, which resulted in a ban on legal grounds by the Department of Health.
The system is known as elective ventilation or interventional ventilation. Under it, patients who were dying, mainly from strokes, were put on ventilators in the intensive care unit until they were declared brain-stem dead, at which point their organs were retrieved for transplantation. That was done with the full permission of the patients' relatives and of clinicians, and in accordance with the Exeter protocol.
The Exeter unit achieved significant success with elective ventilation from 1988 to 1994. Whereas, throughout the country, dialysis numbers were steadily increasing, in Exeter they remained constant and under control, and the number of transplants went up year by year. In 1993, the Exeter unit performed 43 transplants and was one of the busiest in Europe, based on transplants per head of population. It had an 80 per cent. increase in donors. In 1994, when the system was banned in the second half of the year, there were only 23 transplants. In 1995, the figure dropped to 20, and was down to only 10 last year.
In 1993, with optimism running high at the unit, the Exeter and district community health council reported,
a patient in Exeter could almost be guaranteed a transplant within 12 months.
Sadly, that has now radically changed, and, as the transplant rate has gone down, the number of patients on dialysis has grown. There is a national shortage of donor organs, because the number of deaths among those whose organs are suitable for transplantation has decreased. For example, because of increased car safety, there are not as many road accidents.
Renal units are full of people who cannot receive transplants because of difficulty over the supply of kidneys. The consequences of that for patients' quality of life and for the effective use of resources has been devastating.
In October 1994, as a result of a medical practitioner in, I think, Bristol complaining that, under existing legislation, it was illegal and unethical for a patient to be kept on a ventilator when there was no hope of survival purely to accommodate procedures of contact with relatives to gain approval for organ donation, I took a delegation of renal experts to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to try to find a solution to the problem.
The Minister was sympathetic but was reluctant to move towards a change in the law on this ethical problem in the absence of consensus within the medical profession. He suggested that the profession should consult and seek such a consensus, following which the Government might legislate to bring us more into line with most other European Union countries in which procedures allow seriously ill, comatose patients to be routinely admitted to intensive care units while undergoing investigation, often while ventilated. In those countries, interventional or elective ventilation is not necessary: patients already receive such treatment.
We are caught in an ethical trap. Our common law principles state that patients have the right to give or withhold consent to treatment, but that such consent extends only to treatment that is intended to benefit the patient. If, as in these cases, the patient is unconscious, treatment may be given in the absence of consent, but only to the extent that is necessary to save the patient's life, and provided it is not against the patient's known wishes. If the clinician considers that there remains any possible benefit from intensive care, the treatment is lawful. The problem is that of obtaining the consent of a patient who is effectively brain-stem dead.
Throughout the country, thousands of relatives and renal consultants would like legislation to re-establish elective ventilation as a possible avenue to organ donation in cases where both the transplant and intensive care unit teams are in favour; where the next of kin agree; and where pressure on the unit's facilities permit.
The working party of the British Transplantation Society, in taking account of ethical concerns in the medical profession, proposed that certain precautions should apply. For example, it proposed that a clinical trial by a nationally agreed protocol could assess the risk of persistent vegetative state, which is one of the worries that has been expressed. In 1995, the British Medical Association asked the Government to introduce legislation, and, on the issue of ethics, both the BMA and the Royal College of Physicians have approved of elective ventilation, as have health trusts and health authorities.
The report by Exeter and District community health council, which was compiled between April and September 1996, states that the council did not meet a single individual, whether patient or professional, who supported the current ban on elective ventilation. I have a letter from Frank Howarth, the co-chairman of the National Kidney Federation, which represents more than 24,000 renal patients in the United Kingdom. The letter states:
The current waiting list for kidney transplants in the UK at 31 December 1996 was 5,421; therefore, it is imperative every avenue is explored to ensure this waiting list is reduced.
I was fortunate enough to receive a kidney transplant in 1991, which still functions well and will testify to the difference it makes—it really is the 'Gift of Life'—and the most cost effective method of dealing with end stage renal failure.


Elective ventilation was the subject of a discussion document published by the British Transplantation Society in September 1995 This paper outlines a recommended protocol and, amongst other recommendations, recommends the Government should introduce legislation to enable elective ventilation to be re-introduced as an avenue to organ donation by making specific exemptions from the requirement to treat for the patient's own benefit.
I also have a letter from Professor Fabre, of the Institute of Child Health, and should like to quote a couple of important passages from it. He writes:
elective ventilation remains a potentially extremely valuable additional avenue to organ donation and, most importantly, it is a source of donors entirely distinct from and additional to the current pool of potential donors. Every single donor obtained by elective ventilation is a donor that could not possibly have been obtained by any initiative other than elective ventilation (or a massive increase in intensive care facilities). When
the Minister
says that there is no evidence that elective ventilation increases organ donation, it is clear that he does not understand this fundamental point.
Professor Fabre continues:
The Department says that it will not contemplate changes in the law for elective ventilation while the medical profession is divided. This is a transparent cover for sitting on their hands. They know that the medical profession (and indeed any other group) will always be divided on any ethical issue. Abortion is a good example where differences of opinion (strongly held) do not preclude legislation on the basis of a broadly held consensus, with doctors and patients proceeding as their individual consciences dictate.
Elective ventilation has the support of the BMA, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners and several other august bodies. This hardly represents a divided profession. However, the Department has not taken a single constructive step or made any suggestions whatsoever as to how we might proceed on this issue. My feeling is that it does not matter how many influential medical organisations support elective ventilation. Fear of the vocal minority will keep the Government from acting.
Powerful bodies of medical opinion have found the procedure ethically justifiable, yet the clinical practice has been stopped by a point of law raised by some medical practitioners.
On an emotional level, I remind the House that many families with a terminally injured loved one would prefer to have the opportunity of saying their farewells while their loved one is still on the ventilator, with blood circulation maintained, rather than when he or she is completely brain-stem dead and with the ventilator switched off. Those relatives might also take solace from the thought that organ donation gives life to several other desperately ill patients, and that some good will come from their personal tragedy. It is well known that such thoughts sometimes help grieving relatives to come to terms with their loss.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the case for giving elective ventilation a chance—to enable a substantial increase in kidney transplants and many more heart, lung and liver transplants. By doing so, the overall benefit to patient care in Britain will be considerable, and the anguish of many sufferers will be relieved.
Last weekend in Taunton, a young man was admitted to hospital suffering from a massive brain haemorrhage. He was obviously going die, but his wife—who was extremely well informed on the transplant crisis—asked that his organs be used to help others. That young wife was most aggrieved when she was told that, under current

law, her husband, because he was going to die, could not be put on a ventilator. Her sense of bereavement was intensified.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take the initiative now in asking the leaders of our esteemed medical colleges to set up without delay a working party to secure a consensus on this matter, which we all desire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for providing this opportunity to speak about organ transplantation—which is a wonder of modern medical science and has, as he said, truly been the gift of life for so many people. I appreciate his long interest in health and disability issues. In this debate, he spoke with his customary eloquence and feeling.
It has been little more than 30 years since people diagnosed as having end stage renal, heart or liver failure were bound to die within a few months. Thanks to the marvel of organ transplantation, it is now possible for such people to live long and active lives—to work, to enjoy taking part in strenuous sports—and to do all those things that fully fit people can do. I pay tribute to the doctors who regularly perform those modern miracles, and to the nurses, transplant co-ordinators and other support staff who contribute to transplantation.
I should also like to express my deepest gratitude—I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber, although they are few in number, will join me—to those who have donated their organs so that others might live. In the United Kingdom each year, more than 1,500 kidneys, 300 hearts and 600 livers are transplanted, thanks to the selflessness of others. Lungs, pancreas and bowels can also be transplanted, and increasing numbers of those operations take place every year. Moreover, each year about 2,500 corneal transplants are performed, giving precious sight to others. All that is due to the generosity of those who have died, and of their families. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will agree that it is a wonderful success story.
We should not forget, however, that 6,000 people are currently on the waiting list for organs, and that 5,000 of them are waiting for kidneys. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to those figures. The number of those waiting is due not to a lack of money or of clinical expertise but to a shortage of donor organs. Usually, only organs from people who have died from sudden brain injury are suitable, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, vastly improved road accident figures and improvements in neurology have reduced the pool of potential donors. Furthermore, the organs of some of those in the pool will be unsuitable because of damage or disease. Sadly, the chronic shortage of organs is a worldwide problem.
It is for those reasons that we continue to encourage people to become organ donors. The Department of Health currently spends over £1 million a year on publicity to achieve that goal, and the publicity's value can be judged from the fact that almost 4 million people have joined the NHS organ donor register since we launched it a short time ago, in October 1994. A tremendous amount of publicity is also provided by voluntary organisations. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking them for their splendid efforts on behalf of organ donation.
After all the publicity, the number of transplants is being maintained. Demand is rising, however, and supply is not keeping pace. It is therefore unsurprising that radical solutions to the problem have been suggested, including the procedure known as "elective ventilation".
The majority of organs for transplant are taken from people who, having suffered sudden brain injury, have been taken into intensive care and placed on life support systems—with the object of saving their lives—but who, sadly, have died there. If they or their families have agreed to organ donation, their bodies remain in intensive care and their lungs remain artificially ventilated so that blood can continue to circulate until the organs can be removed. That has to be done, or the organs would rapidly deteriorate and be unsuitable for transplantation.
Some people who might be suitable as organ donors die in hospital, although not in intensive care. A few years ago, doctors at one hospital devised a protocol under which patients on ordinary wards who were expected to die shortly were—with the permission of their families, as my hon. Friend said—taken to intensive care and placed on life support systems, so that their organs could be maintained until they could be removed for transplantation after death was pronounced. That is a description of the procedure known as "elective ventilation", which is the subject of this debate.
In 1990, details of the elective ventilation protocol and the results obtained were published in The Lancet. The article suggested that the procedure could achieve a significant increase in the number of transplants performed. However, many people, both inside and outside the medical profession, had grave reservations about the ethics and the legality of subjecting a patient to invasive procedures that were of no benefit to that patient but aimed solely at maintaining organs for eventual transplantation into others.
As far as I am aware, elective ventilation was practised very little outside the hospital where it was originally devised, probably because of the concerns about the ethical and legal position. My hon. Friend is slightly at variance on that, because he suggested that it was rather more widely practised than I understand it to have been.
In 1994, an independent research study team informed the Department of Health that they had received a legal opinion that elective ventilation was unlawful. The Department of Health therefore sought and obtained an opinion from Queen's counsel, which was that elective ventilation was indeed unlawful, because any intervention made without the patient's consent must be in the patient's best interests, or it could be judged to be an assault. Clearly, elective ventilation is of no benefit to the person receiving it.
The United Kingdom Health Departments informed the national health service of counsel's opinion, and the practice of elective ventilation ceased at that point. To have done otherwise could have left health authorities, NHS trusts and individual clinicians open to prosecution. I am sure that none of us would have wanted that to happen.
Understandably, the supporters of elective ventilation, especially the people at the hospital that pioneered it, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, were unhappy about the effect of the legal opinion. A number of them met my predecessor, as my hon. Friend said, and put to him their arguments in favour of the procedure. In essence, those were that, under the protocol, the procedure was carried out only with the fully informed consent of the patient's relatives, and that, without elective ventilation, the number of transplants would fall. The supporters of elective ventilation also suggested that a change in the law might be sought to enable it to take place.
For the law, the issue hinges on consent to treatment. As I have said, legal advice is that any intervention, if it is not done in the interests of the patient, could be judged an assault, even though the patient's relatives have given consent. There are sound reasons for that: the patient would not, for example, otherwise have protection against unnecessary major surgery. Intubation of a patient in intensive care is not a minor procedure, and the question of anticipated death is worrying for many people.
At what stage is it possible to say that a patient will inevitably die? Placing people in intensive care under such circumstances also carries the risk, albeit probably a small one of inducing persistent vegetative state in the patient—a subject to which my hon. Friend referred. Such a scenario could do great harm to the cause of organ donation, as other bad news—and, indeed, rumour—has done in the past. It would, of course, also be a cause of great distress to the family, and would place them under additional stress.
The general principle that a person may not, without consent, be given treatment that is not in his or her own interest is clearly important. Anyone attempting to alter that principle would find themselves in a minefield. They would have to find a way of modifying the principle without leaving a breach through which others might gallop. It could be argued, for example, that a patient expected to die should, before death, be subjected to treatment that would facilitate research on his or her body after death. Justification for such treatment might be claimed on the ground that the research might result in saving other lives. Many people will find that argument unacceptable.
In 1994, when the NHS was informed of the legal opinion on elective ventilation, some people expressed fears that the number of transplants would drop. Happily, that did not happen. In 1993, there were 1,571 cadaveric kidney transplants in the United Kingdom; in 1994, there were 1,601; and in 1995, there were 1,645. Heart transplants, including heart and lung transplants, rose from 338 in 1993 to 366 in 1994; in 1995, there were 349. In 1993, there were 534 liver transplants; in 1994, there were 620; and in 1995, there were 667. The cessation of elective ventilation does not appear to have had an effect nationally, although I accept that the story may well be different in the hospital in Exeter that my hon. Friend knows so well.
Having made that point, I make it clear that we are not complacent—indeed, we are far from complacent—about the transplantation figures. The numbers of kidney and heart transplants have not increased greatly in recent years, although the figures for liver transplants have been somewhat better. The so-called plateau effect


in kidneys and hearts is being experienced in other countries which, like the UK, have been performing transplants for a number of years.
We have therefore introduced a number of measures aimed at maintaining and, if possible, improving the transplant figures. Apart from the NHS organ donor register, which I have mentioned, we have introduced donor declarations on driving licences, a reimbursement scheme for hospitals whose intensive care units maintain organ donors, multi-organ retrieval teams which have resulted in more organs being retrieved per donor, and support for the education of hospital staff involved in organ donation and transplantation.
We continue to monitor and review provisions for organ procurement and publicity for organ donation Together with the medical and nursing professions, the transplant co-ordinators and the voluntary organisations, we will continue to consider carefully all suggestions put to us that might result in more transplants and the gift of life, about which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently, for many more people. In that context, I welcome my hon. Friend's specific suggestion about discussions between the royal colleges. Such discussions could be extremely valuable, and I will look into the matter sympathetically.

Neurological Disorders

Mr. Alan Howarth: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the needs of people suffering from neurological conditions, and the needs of their families and carers. Early-day motion 252, in my name and supported by 55 right hon. and hon. Members, briefly states the issues on which I would like to enlarge. The words of the early-day motion are:
That this House notes that some 1.8 million people in the United Kingdom are significantly affected by a neurological condition, that the needs of many of them for both health and social care are complex and inadequately met and that organisational structures and interests may obstruct the provision of appropriate services; and calls upon local authorities, health authorities and NHS trusts to apply both the letter and the spirit of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 through joint planning and commissioning of services for people affected by a neurological condition.
I am indebted to the Neurological Alliance for encouragement and advice in pursuing these matters. The Neurological Alliance is an umbrella group of 30 charities concerned with individual neurological conditions. It contains household name charities concerned with certain disorders that are common: Alzheimer's, epilepsy, stroke, migraine, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. Other charities within the Neurological Alliance represent sufferers from uncommon conditions, such as Huntington's disease, forms of muscular dystrophy and hereditary ataxias.
Research shows that, in an average health district of 250,000 people, there will be 4,000 to 5,000 people aged over 16 with a disabling neurological condition, and of them, perhaps 1,500 will be so disabled as to require help for most of their day-to-day activities. People with neurological conditions make up 20 per cent. of acute admissions to medical wards. A minimum of 3,285 people will be seen annually in outpatients' departments in each health district. People with neurological conditions are 13 per cent. of disabled people living at home and 30 per cent. of disabled people living in residential institutions.
It is useful to consider neurological conditions together, despite the great variety of those conditions, because the needs of sufferers, their families and carers have certain things in common. People with neurological conditions are a major responsibility of the health service and of social services departments, yet for that large group of people deserving of the best care we can give, we have not—I use the phrase advisedly—got our act together.
I will not dwell on how much more might be done to prevent some of these conditions. Of course we should do more to promote better health care. Alcohol and drug abuse, including smoking, can result in neurological damage. Improved road conditions and better lighting could prevent accidents that lead to neurological damage. Genetic information and counselling need to be available to people who may pass on a genetic condition.
At the onset of medical conditions—for example, after an accident—there is a short interval in which it may be possible to arrest or limit major brain damage. Whether that can be done depends on access to accident and emergency units, quick and accurate diagnosis in them, and the availability of scanning and intensive care equipment. A survey of consultants in 1995, however, found that only 17 per cent. of consultants worked in


a hospital where there was a physician or neurologist with special responsibility for stroke. Although a brain scan is a critical element in diagnosis, the Stroke Association reports that an estimated 30,000 patients a year with acute stroke are admitted to a hospital with no CT scanning facilities.
I want to emphasise the complexity of the needs of sufferers from neurological conditions. The disorders cross the boundaries of health and social care and hospital and community services, and the divisions of physical disability, mental health and provision for children, adults and the elderly.
Many neurological conditions have a range of symptoms that require specialist expertise for recognition and treatment. Early and accurate diagnosis is of great importance. Undiagnosed neurological symptoms cause enormous insecurity.
Certain conditions are so rare that a general practitioner may see only one or two cases, or even none, yet specialist services are in short supply. The Association of British Neurologists tells us that we need one neurologist per 100,000 of the population. Even if we had that many, a large number of stroke victims would still be seen by a practitioner in an alternative discipline, and the majority of those with Alzheimer's disease and some with late onset disorders such as Parkinson's would still be seen by geriatricians and psycho-geriatricians.
The Multiple Sclerosis Society points out that only a consultant neurologist may prescribe beta interferon, but, because of the long waiting lists, patients who would benefit from that drug cannot have it for long periods.
With the shortage of neurologists and the inevitable lack of specialised knowledge among most general practitioners, it is all the more important that there should be guidance for referral and re-referral, and systems for exchanging information and advice on management.
Neurological conditions have an impact on all aspects of people's lives. Some conditions are variable and unpredictable. Some are slowly degenerative. All require timely and appropriate input, ranging from information and counselling through to rehabilitative treatment, special housing and respite care. A range of disciplines and services needs to be involved, supported and co-ordinated. Each sufferer and each sufferer's carers need comprehensive and co-ordinated care.
People with neurological conditions have an array of problems that need to be recognised and addressed. They have needs for appropriate medical intervention, including therapies for improvement and maintenance, monitoring the side effects of drugs, avoidance of pressure sores, incontinence aids, optimal nutrition, comprehensive information, mobility equipment—the Government's withdrawal of the mobility component of disability living allowance for adults who go into hospital for more than 28 days does not help—communication aids, opportunities for employment and leisure.
Patients require a holistic approach to their needs—medical, social and emotional. They are bewildered by the array of agencies and professionals. Without co-ordination, they will not receive timely and appropriate treatment and services and continuity of care. Co-ordination is often lacking. The work load of

neurologists is such that they have little opportunity to explore beyond the medical needs of their patients. Service provision is fragmented, and liaison between neurology departments and social services departments is too often poor.
We should be able to expect that a neurological team will have a spectrum of expertise—neurologist, rehabilitative physician, occupational physio and speech therapists, psychologist, nurse, social worker, dietician and, very importantly, a designated co-ordinator with responsibility for ensuring that the right things happen at the right moment. The co-ordinator, as the central point of contact for the patient, the patient's family and the professionals, should be able to ensure proper communication between all concerned, continuity of care and ready access to information or services from the appropriate person. Evidence makes it clear that those stroke patients, for example, who are helped by a multi-disciplinary team tend to make the best recovery.
That model is not, regrettably, what we generally find. The reality is too often a deficiency of relevant expertise and a passing of the buck, particularly between health and social services. The concentration in the health service on acute needs is too much at the expense of proper attention to long-term, progressive, but less acute, needs. The market trading system in the NHS is not suitable to achieve the teamwork and co-ordination that neurological sufferers need.
In 1995, only 21 per cent. of consultants worked in hospitals with a stroke multi-disciplinary team. There is a lack of neurologists and of specialists in rehabilitation—in 1995 only 44 per cent of consultants had access to a stroke rehabilitation unit—and the distribution of rehabilitation centres is unplanned and arbitrary. Some areas do not have such a service, while others can provide help only to acute cases. Lack of access to multi-disciplinary rehabilitation teams is the result not only of lack of funding but of lack of understanding by other professionals of its importance, as well as lack of co-operation between different health and social care agencies.
Social services departments do not generally consider people with neurological conditions as a distinctive, though varied, group, but usually bracket them with the physically disabled or the elderly. Neurological conditions pose challenges to structures and working practices that most social services departments are not meeting. In spite of that, the Government are pressing local authorities to privatise social care.
If social services departments are unable to establish proper procedures and standards, how can we have any confidence that they will insist on them from private contractors? The Carers National Association has recorded its concern with the wholesale contracting out of services for accountability, quality of standards, choice and monitoring.
The 7 million carers in our society—1.5 million of them caring for a person for more than 20 hours a week—do not receive the support they should. The aspirations of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act, introduced two years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), need to be turned into reality.
The additional personal tax allowance for people who work as well as care is available only to men. It is extraordinary that women are not eligible. Invalid carers


allowance is an exiguous benefit of only £36.60, with no taper, hedged about with restrictive rules, which were recently tightened by the Government's new regulations on computation of earnings.
Some 20 per cent. of carers have never had a break. More respite provision is urgently needed. The predicament of young carers needs special attention, and is often a particular anxiety for a patient suffering from a neurological condition. A thorough review of support for carers is needed in the context of an overall review of the funding of long-term care.
Let me illustrate how things can go wrong in our present pattern—or lack of pattern. My first example is of a sufferer from Huntington's disease, about whom I learned from the Huntington's Disease Association. Huntington's presents a uniquely grim combination of mental health problems and profound physical problems.
Philip was 37 years old when he died, having been diagnosed with Huntington's disease for 12 years. He was cared for at home by his wife, who received the help of a carer for four hours in the morning and a night sitter. When she needed respite, social services said that Philip would have to stay in a long-stay geriatric hospital as it could not afford hospice fees. Philip's wife visited the hospital, and decided that that would not do.
Philip's condition deteriorated fast. Social services suggested nursing home care, but, after two weeks, the nursing home said that it could not cope. The suggestion for his future care was the long-stay geriatric ward. Philip's wife asked again if he could go to the hospice. Social services again said no, because it could not fund that. At that point, the health authority said that Philip did not fit into its criteria for continuing care.
A case conference was called. Everyone agreed that Philip needed terminal care, and an assessment in a unit specialising in Huntington's disease, so that his needs could be clearly established. Then, when the issue of funding arose, came disagreement. Eventually, the health authority agreed to fund the assessment, but Philip died in a general ward in a hospital on the day that he was due to be transferred to the unit. He had spent the last three months of his life being transferred in and out of hospital while people decided whether he met the continuing health care criteria.
The Alzheimer's Disease Society tells me of the case of an elderly woman in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's—deaf, blind and virtually immobile. Her husband was told last year that, with the introduction of new eligibility criteria, she no longer qualified for NHS continuing care, because she was neither unlikely to die in the next six weeks nor in a coma. He was therefore asked to move her to a private nursing home, where he would have to pay.
Shortly after being informed of the decision, the husband fell seriously ill and has been diagnosed with cancer. The health authority continued to insist that his wife must be moved, and that
the health of the carer, regardless of the seventy of the illness, is not a consideration in the decision to move her.
She is still in the ward, and it remains to be seen what will happen.
Finally, let me describe a case reported to me by the South Warwickshire Council of Disabled People. AD is a 37-year-old woman who has suffered from multiple

sclerosis for a number of years. She developed psychotic behaviour. She was treated in hospital, and her condition settled. She was given a date for discharge. One week before that date, the social services department informed her that it was unable to fund her care package at home and that her case needed to be reviewed between the social services and the health authority. There ensued an argument between social services and the health authority so protracted that it was another five months before the woman left hospital.
I strongly endorse the words of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in Bradford on 7 January about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He said:
The first rights of access under the Act place duties on service providers not to refuse service and not to provide it on less favourable terms.
The Government, however, have a duty to ensure that health authorities and social services departments have the means to fulfil their duties. I quote from the findings of a joint review team from the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate on Warwickshire's social services:
Because of financial constraints, the Department was in danger of reducing its role to a minimalist reactive one, concentrating only on its statutory obligations to those most at risk and neglecting those capable of rehabilitation, which is not a viable long term strategy.
We can only be ashamed of the inadequacy of current service provision. Against the inevitable financial constraints, the need for the cost-effectiveness that properly combined and co-ordinated holistic provision could achieve in the support of sufferers from neurological conditions is all the greater. The Government should set national standards and models; they should also, I suggest, top-slice funds from the health service and social services to support the network of regional specialist centres that is needed, and to provide financial leverage to ensure the co-ordination and co-operation of the various services involved.
I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations—those in the Neurological Alliance and others—that play such an invaluable role in supporting sufferers from neurological conditions. Voluntary organisations play a vital part in representing service users, providing information, advice and guidance, and establishing local support groups. In many cases, they directly provide advice, comfort and support—often including equipment and sometimes financial support—working alongside the statutory services.
The organisations work at all levels—individual, local and national—and across all boundaries. Their work, which is vital today, will become of increasing importance as the number of people requiring long-term care is likely to increase. In many cases, advances in treatment and management will not produce a cure, but will stabilise or slow down the decline of patients so that lisfe is prolonged. Today, there are more than 670,000 people with dementia. By the year 2021, the number is expected to be nearer 1 million.
The charities are working to promote the collection and exchange of information on neurological conditions, to organise and participate in training programmes, to act as channels for mutual collaboration on models of care, technology and research and to inform and influence policy makers about the needs and circumstances of people with neurological conditions.
The Government need to be clear in their own mind about the role that they expect voluntary organisations to perform. They need to be consistent in the manner in which they work with voluntary organisations. Voluntary organisations, as expert representatives of sufferers, should play a key role in partnership with the Government in policy formation. As they know better than any of us, in all too many respects, we have a long way to go to reach the standards of care for sufferers of neurological conditions that we could and should provide.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) for raising this important subject. I was particularly interested to hear the valid and important points he raised, although I suspect that he would not expect me to accept his interpretation or analysis of certain issues.
As the hon. Gentleman said, neurological disorders affect large numbers of people. The Neurological Alliance estimates that about 1·8 million people suffer from them. Whether they are relatively common conditions such as Alzheimer's, stroke, epilepsy or Parkinson's disease, less common ones such as motor neurone disease, or very rare conditions such as progressive supranuclear palsy, they impose an enormous burden on sufferers and their families. In addition, statutory health and social services clearly have a vital role in providing appropriate and effective services and treatment.
The Neurological Alliance has produced a very useful document: "Living with a Neurological Condition—Standards of Care". I am more than happy to endorse its broad thrust and its general message, as my predecessor did with the alliance's 1992 document—of which it is a revision. I am sure that health authorities, NHS hospital and community trusts and GP fundholders will find it a useful aid when they are drawing up contracts for services for people with neurological conditions.
Patients with neurological disorders—and their carers—are the real experts in what it means to live with neurological conditions. That is why one of the six medium-term priorities for this year and next requires the NHS to give greater voice and influence to users of NHS services and their carers in their own care, the development and definition of standards set for NHS services locally and the development of NHS policy locally and nationally.
As far as the development of policy nationally is concerned, Ministers and officials of the Department of Health have close contacts with the Neurological Alliance—which includes nearly 30 charities representing people with neurological conditions and their carers. Indeed, my predecessor formally launched the alliance in the House in February 1994.
The alliance is receiving five years' core funding from the Department, amounting to £91,000 in total, and in 1996 we funded the production of its document, "Providing a service for people with neurological conditions", that includes a model of care which purchasers and providers of health services may wish to adopt. The alliance contributed to the NHS executive's listening exercise on the primary care-led NHS, and provided some very helpful comments.
We attach great importance to the need to involve users of services and their carers and representative bodies in the development of policy. We also have close contacts with many of the Neurological Alliance's member organisations, several of which have received funding from the Department under the section 64 general scheme of grants.
For example, officials at the Department are working closely with the epilepsy charities on the Department's epilepsy initiatives, for which funding has been provided amounting to more than £300,000 so far, including more than £30,000 to NHS epilepsy services development projects. The MS Society was closely involved in the guidance we issued last year on the introduction of beta interferon to the NHS.
Some people argue that the Government should prescribe at national level what treatments the NHS should provide, including treatments for people with neurological disorders. I do not believe that that would be right. No such list of treatments could ever hope to accommodate the range and complexity of the different cases that individual clinicians face all the time. It would be entirely inappropriate to take decisions out of the hands of the clinicians treating patients and into the province of others who possess neither the experience of caring for patients nor the expertise to make such decisions.
The role of the centre is to set the strategic direction for the NHS—as we do in the annual priorities and planning guidance and in other documents such as our recent White Papers on primary care and "A Service with Ambitions". We said in "A Service with Ambitions":
the NHS and its partners should give increasing priority both to the prevention of physical and sensory disability, and to the problems associated with disability where it has been diagnosed. At the point of diagnosis people should be informed honestly, sensitively and fully of the nature and consequences of the disease and given access immediately to counselling, advice and support.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not a disgrace that, in some parts of the country, it can take up to six months from examination by a general practitioner to examination by a neurologist? My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made a key point about the shortage of neurologists. In Lancashire, it can take six months to get an appointment to see a neurologist.

Mr. Burns: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I hope to address later in my speech the question of the number of neurologists and what is being done to increase it to provide greater care for people suffering from neurological diseases.
The White Paper continued:
The NHS should be leading the way in changing public attitudes towards disabled people.
I am sure that no hon. Member would disagree with that. We all, regardless of our political views or prejudices, should work together to advance that cause.
Patients need to be confident that those working in the health service have the right knowledge and skills to do their jobs properly. The White Paper "Choice and Opportunity—Primary Care, The Future" sets out proposals to ensure that professionals working in primary health care have access to education and training that matches the needs of their patients. It responds to calls


for more opportunities for multi-disciplinary learning, for better continuous education, for more training outside hospitals and for improved research and development and clinical audit in primary care.
Primary care has developed rapidly in recent years. Advances in medical knowledge, backed up by new technologies, larger teams of dedicated staff bringing new skills to primary care, and increasing investment, have raised both the quality and the range of services provided. At the same time, many primary care teams have taken on a wider role in the provision, planning and management of services through GP fundholding and GP-led commissioning.
However, those changes and opportunities have also led to pressures on the service. Changes in the work force, including expectations and aspirations of those involved, have contributed to the pressures. Although services have generally improved, we acknowledge that the effect has been patchy. Some parts of the country and some groups of people continue to be less well served than others.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised a valid and important question about GPs. He was right to say that GPs may only once or twice during their working lives—a relatively short time—see patients suffering from one of the more complex or rarer problems that he described. Obviously, one cannot expect GPs to be experts on the subject and to be able to address the problems of those patients, but it is important—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees—that they have the ability and the knowledge to refer such patients to the relevant neurologist or other clinician who can deal with those cases.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the number of neurologists working in the health service at present. There are currently some 260 consultant neurologists in England and Wales, and their number has increased by about 4·3 per cent. in the past five years. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Health and the specialist work force advisory group will continue to monitor the need for additional neurologists and to seek to redress the problem, if the research shows that to be necessary.
The hon. Member also mentioned collaboration between agencies, which is critical for the provision of a first class service. Collaboration, both at a strategic level and at the level of individual care packages, is essential to meet the needs of people with chronic diseases, such as neurological disorders, and for older people with complex needs. Groups representing people with chronic conditions have emphasised the need for care co-ordination and management responsibility to be clearly assigned within primary health care teams.
The Department of Health, working with the Department of the Environment, has encouraged innovation in collaborative working, through guidance on joint commissioning and through training and development support. Further work is in progress to identify good practice in collaborative working across primary and social care boundaries.
People want and need information that will tell them about specific conditions and diseases, especially chronic conditions. The voluntary sector has developed a wide range of such information. For example, the British Epilepsy Association, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and the Parkinson's Disease Society all produce good, up-to-date, user-friendly literature to help to inform those who contact them. The freephone health information service puts callers in touch with appropriate support groups and provides condition-specific literature. The voluntary sector also provides people with information on appropriate services as well as advising what people can do for themselves to control or improve their condition.
I join the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon in paying tribute to the voluntary sector and to carers. They play an important role in providing practical and emotional support. In many ways, they are the unsung heroes of society, whose work all too often passes unnoticed because of their professionalism and commitment. They do not seek praise or attention: they get on with doing the job. By definition, people who are determined to get on with the job do not necessarily attract the thanks, support and praise that they richly deserve.
One of the principles of good primary care is that professionals should be knowledgeable about the conditions that present in primary care, and skilled in their treatment and in contribution to their prevention. Professionals need to be knowledgeable about the people to whom they are offering services, and services need to be co-ordinated by professionals who are aware of each others' contributions—including inter-professional working—and who know when to refer people for specialist care.
There should be no gaps in services. Necessary services should be accessible to people regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, disability or health status, and should reflect the needs and preferences of the individuals using them. Patients need to be confident that those working in primary care have the right knowledge and skills to do their job properly. That calls, in turn, for primary care staff to have access to high-quality professional education, training and development.
Such important issues cannot all be resolved overnight, but I am confident that we are working along the right lines and that what we are doing will benefit all people using the NHS, including people with neurological disorders and their caring families.

Engineering

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I wish to discuss the Year of Engineering Success, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last Wednesday, and also to propose two changes in legislation that would encourage more students to become engineers. Before I begin, I wish to thank my constituent, John Evans of Lichfield, and Steve Potter, of the House of Commons Library, for their research, some of which I will be using today.
Engineering is big business. The United Kingdom engineering industry employs 1.8 million people, with forecast total sales for 1996 of £163·5 billion and exports of £81·5 billion. It is successful in comparison with other industries: the average share price of United Kingdom engineering companies rose by 120 per cent. between September 1992 and the middle of 1996, compared with a 70 per cent. rise in the FTSE share index during the same period. Despite that, engineering still suffers from a poor image, especially as a career choice among young people.
The Year of Engineering Success was launched on 22 January, and followed a meeting four years ago between the then President of the Board of Trade, now my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Institution of Electrical Engineers, of which I happen to be a member. The initiative is the most recent of an on-going series to raise the profile of engineering as a career choice and as a significant contributor to the economy.
The Government state that YES recognises the potential impact of engineering on society from its traditional industrial applications to modern, applied technologies, such as keyhole surgery and virtual reality. It will co-ordinate a range of events that will take place throughout the year, is being supported by more than £1 million-worth of investment from the Government and the private sector—including companies that have recently been privatised, such as British Airways, British Gas, BP, National Grid, National Power, Rover Group and Vickers—and involves the engineering institutions.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, a launch of the Year of Engineering Success in Parliament in December—sponsored by the all-party engineering development group—made two points, on which I am sure he will touch. One is that every year should be a year of engineering success, and the second is that this year provides a chance to draw attention to the career opportunities of engineering and the requirement for better school education in mathematics and physics, and better further education to take advantage of those opportunities.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I recall attending that very opening ceremony in the other place last year. I shall be touching very shortly on the question of education, especially for those entering university. I support everything that he has said.
The events taking place during the Year of Engineering Success will be organised by a group of committees and will centre on the many key

areas of engineering applications, including energy, construction, transport, agriculture, the environment and communications.
In fact, I understand from the Institution of Electrical Engineers that, today, it and GEC Marconi will be announcing jointly a new initiative to assist in-service training of teachers in electronics, which is one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) mentioned. The scheme will be known as "Marconi Days" and is expected to provide training for up to 1,000 teachers annually. The detailed programme will be developed with the teaching profession, and pilots are expected to be launched in the autumn.
The application of engineering in industry is one of the central strands of the Government's science policy that was published in 1993. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has said, this year should not be the only year of engineering success. Indeed, there have been previous such years, and I hope that there will be many in future. I shall point out the dangers that face us, which could result in years of engineering failure—but I shall reserve that until the end of the debate.
The practical and financial benefits that engineering can bring about when applied to industry are well documented. One engineer who invented a new type of metal nut to overcome a glitch in the air-powered starter motor of a type of jet engine, has saved his employers, British Airways, a potential £1 million a year in quicker aircraft turnarounds.
At the other end of the scale, many people have heard of the Scottish engineer who has designed an automated cash dispenser that uses friction rather than the present vacuum system to pick up notes. His invention, on which he worked during his university course work in mechanical engineering, has won several awards, and will double the speed that cash machines take to dispense money—which will not be pleasing to some of my colleagues whose wives use their cards to dispense cash.
One of the best publicised inventions by a British inventor in recent months has been of the clockwork radio, which was invented by Trevor Baylis. Baylis decided to invent the clockwork radio after watching a television programme about how difficult it was to get educational information on AIDS to people in Africa because batteries were expensive or unobtainable and electricity supplies erratic.
Through my former company, I supplied and installed systems for Radio Uganda and Uganda Television. Part of that work was funded by the World Health Organisation for the very purpose of conveying educational information on AIDS. How good it is that the output of my excellent radio studios will be well received on clockwork radios. Twenty thousand such clockwork radios are produced every month in a South African factory, which employs more than 150 staff, most of whom are disabled.
All is not rosy, however. A former colleague of mine, John Forrest, chairman of a working group established by the Royal Academy of Engineering, has said:
The UK produces some of the best engineers in the world but many firms, especially small and medium ones, are complaining they cannot recruit the right kind of engineer.
Encouraging more young engineers to train to the level to meet industry's needs is one of the main objectives of the YES campaign.
The Engineering and Marine Training Authority has recently produced a survey, which was conducted for it in December 1996 by MORI. Schoolchildren aged between about 14 and 16 years were asked, "How much do you know about engineering?" "Not very much." answered 45 per cent. of them, "Nothing at all," said 39 per cent. and only 11 per cent. said that they knew "a fair amount/a great deal" about engineering. That is a sad indictment of the present position.
More worryingly, when the children were asked, "How likely or unlikely are you to consider a career in engineering?", 62 per cent. said, "Very unlikely," and 14 per cent. said, "Fairly unlikely." That is worrying for a nation that became Great Britain through engineers such as Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who put the "great" into Great Britain and gave us the wherewithal to form an empire.
How can we overcome the problem? I should like to propose two remedies. The first is to broaden the education system, and the second is to raise the status of engineering in the United Kingdom. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is not responsible for education matters, so I shall be relatively brief on the first issue. I ask him to pass on my comments.
I believe that Britain breeds inarticulate engineers and innumerate art graduates. Either way, Britain often ends up researching wonderful products and leaving the development to the Japanese or the Americans. Both research and development are important; the two go together. A broad base of knowledge is needed so that scientists and engineers can communicate the details of their work and financial accountants and marketing men can understand the potential of that work.
We specialise far too early in our education system. We have, of course, introduced national vocational qualifications, which have provided a port of entry into further and higher education for many students who might not otherwise have got there. But what of academic students? In England and Wales, the A-level system, the so-called "gold standard", forces 15 and 16-year-olds to choose just two, three or sometimes four subjects in which to specialise. That has to be wrong.
Scotland's system of highers and the German gymnasium matriculation all offer a wider choice of subjects to study before entering university. Fifteen-year-old artists do not abandon science and mathematics; scientists do not abandon history, languages or literature. Semi-A-levels, as I call them, such as "use of English" and "general studies" are merely tinkering with a flawed system and are no substitute.
The Department for Education and Employment argues that English and Welsh students could take GNVQs or AS-levels, but all universities say that they prefer the depth of A-level courses. I am not sure why that is. With the proliferation of examining boards and the variety of options available, there are about 253 alternative syllabuses—or is it syllabi?—for maths alone. [Interruption.] It is a gerundive, so it is syllabi.
Universities cannot begin their courses where A-levels leave off. Far from being the gold standard, A-levels have damaged our education and economy for years. The means of entry to higher education should be reassessed and reformed. One of our goals for the 21st century should be to say goodbye to the schoolboy specialist and greet the schoolboy polymath.
The question of raising engineers' status directly affects the Minister's Department. I believe that we could achieve that aim by the statutory registration of engineers. The Law Society was founded in 1825, followed in 1832 by the British Medical Association. Those and other professional groups secured statutory registration, but engineers did not.
We are all no doubt familiar with the proliferation of titles containing the word engineer. Examples include the sign, "Environmental Engineers" on trucks belonging to waste disposal companies; I believe that toll collectors on freeway bridges in America are members of the Brotherhood of Professional Engineers; and the lad who replaces one's car exhaust is often mistakenly referred to as an engineer.
Historically, "engineer" was the term used for military practitioners who dealt with all aspects of engineering. The word "ingénieur" was first used in 17th-century France as a professional title for a scientifically trained technician in the public service. In Britain, the title "engineer" was probably first used for a non-military individual in 1702, to describe a George Sorocold of Derby.
To avoid confusion and to distinguish themselves from their military colleagues, the civilians adopted the description of civil engineer. The first in Britain to use it was John Smeaton, in 1768, not long after he completed the Eddystone lighthouse.
The Society of Civil Engineers was formed in 1771. Soon, all non-military engineers adopted the title, regardless of whether they specialised in engines, canals, roads, bridges or other branches of engineering. We are all familiar with James Watt, Thomas Telford, George Stephenson and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Who has not felt pride in the achievements of the canal era and the railway age, when British engineers led the world? Indeed, I recently visited Sweden and travelled on the railway line between Gothenburg and Stockholm; that line was built by British engineers.
The designers of many magnificent mediaeval cathedrals, including the glorious 800-year-old cathedral at Lichfield, which thousands of people visit, would, in today's terminology, be called structural engineers. As technology developed, the civil engineering profession gradually became subdivided, and today we have mechanical and other types of engineer. Gone for ever are the days when non-military practitioners were all called civil engineers.
Despite the long and honourable history of engineering in this country, engineers have been hard done by compared with architects. I shall explain that carefully, as the former chairman of my local Conservative association is an architect. The professional activities of architects have always been intimately linked with those of engineers. As late as the 1920s, there were architect members of the Institution of Civil Engineers, even though the Royal Institute of British Architects had been established in 1834.
There are other examples of the close relationship between engineers and architects. The Civil Engineers and Architects Journal was popular in Britain between 1837 and 1868, and the American Society of Engineers and Architects was founded in 1852. On the continent of Europe, the two disciplines remain to this day closely connected, and many practitioners are proud to describe themselves as architect-engineers.
In the construction industry worldwide, the initials AEC stand for architecture, engineering and construction, thereby testifying to the continuing close association between those related activities. In this country, the title of architect was safeguarded by the Architects (Registration) Act 1931, but the title of engineer remains unprotected. As a result, the law allows an unqualified or inexperienced individual to adopt the description, regardless of fitness for purpose.
In New Zealand, legislation was enacted 72 years ago for the registration of engineers, and several other countries have introduced similar provisions. Paradoxically, statutory registration is already mandatory in the United Kingdom for small groups of engineers. For instance, the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930 restricts the design and inspection of large reservoirs to suitably experienced civil engineers appointed by Government.
More recently, on 3 September 1985, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, addressing the first assembly of the Engineering Council, said:
It is for the Government to create the right background conditions, but it is you engineers who can grasp the opportunities and make our future prosperous and I am here today for one reason: to show the importance this Government attaches to your work, your profession and your role in our future. Our country's success needs you.
The Minister should note the words
It is for the Government".
In February 1992, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), then Minister for Housing and Planning, announced an intention to review the Architects (Registration) Acts and appointed an assessor, Mr. Warne, who considered observations submitted by several professional organisations. He found that the Institution of Civil Engineers
saw no major reason for maintaining the system of registration for architects alone",
and said that the institution envisaged
a much wider issue of statutory registration of all professional members of the construction industry".
That would include civil engineers. However, nothing has happened.
On 2 February 1996, at the inauguration of the reformed Engineering Council, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:
You know my view that engineers and engineering are exceptionally important but their full potential is not being realised in certain key respects. A number of steps are needed to remedy this, including: fundamental reform of the selection, education, training and use of engineers and technicians.
He went on to say that a subsidiary objective was
to ensure that the importance of engineering to the British economy, as recognised in the Science and Technology White Paper, is properly reflected in Government policies".

I believe that the time is right to ensure that the term engineer is used correctly in this country, to raise the status of engineers and to encourage more students to study engineering. One valuable way of achieving that is to follow the path of other countries and adopt a statutory register of engineers.
The law and its administration need not be complex. We already have the title of chartered engineer. Corporate members of existing engineering institutions, such as the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers may all be chartered engineers. All those institutions have high standards for corporate membership: at least a first degree in engineering, and senior professional experience.
No new bureaucracy need be established. I propose simple legislation stipulating that only a chartered engineer may legally call himself, or herself, an engineer. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
What of the future? As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said, we want not only this year, but many years of engineering success in the future. The Engineering Employers Federation has produced a booklet entitled, "Engineering: Creating Wealth for our Future". Referring to the future of the United Kingdom within the European Union, it says:
the UK should retain its Social Chapter opt-out because labour market restrictions should be reduced, and not increased. The best way to provide improved employment conditions is through enhanced international competitiveness, rather than legislation.
It also says that we require
national rather than EU legislation".
I certainly agree with that.
The EEF also talks about creating a flexible labour market. It says:
The EEF does not support the introduction of a National Minimum Wage since it would indirectly reduce the competitiveness of the engineering industry by increasing the costs of many contracted-out services. It would also have an inflationary impact upon pay structures as it would inevitably result in pressures to maintain existing pay differentials.
Furthermore, any regular increase in a National Minimum Wage will open the real possibility that, during pay negotiations, this will be regarded by employees and their representatives as the minimum acceptable increase, irrespective of their employer's economic and financial circumstances and labour market conditions.
These are the people who know. These are the people who work in the engineering industry. These are the people who employ people in the engineering industry. Yet the Labour party talks about the very policies that the EEF says would create unemployment and destruction of the engineering industry in Britain.
My saddest fear for engineering is that, if perchance there were a Labour Government, we would see not years of engineering success but years of engineering failure.

The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Ian Taylor): This has been a truly excellent use of these short debates. A cornucopia of information about the engineering industry came forth from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I give him full credit for initiating the debate and giving us all the information, indeed for being a veritable polymath—an engineer who can correct his own gerunds. He is a great tribute to the House of Commons.
I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend, because he is one of the people, a little like myself, who started life with the disadvantage of studying economics. But he rose above that and became a chartered engineer. He is a fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers—one of only two in the House The other happens to be an Opposition Member, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Ban (Mr. Rooker). I am reliably informed that there are only six chartered engineers in the House of Commons. I am sure that, if I have got that wrong, I will receive letters from colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) also took part briefly in the debate. I recognise all the work that he does as chairman of the all-party engineering development group in the House and elsewhere to advance the interests of the engineering industry.
The backdrop to the debate obviously has the support of the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Council, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred, as well as the various chartered institutes and many others with an interest in engineering. The Year of Engineering Success is one of those wonderful inventions which, while it uses the term "year", is slightly elastic. I have been participating in the Year of Engineering Success since last summer, but it will run until the end of 1997. Mary Harris, who is running it, is a fireball of energy, and is doing a wonderful job in activating people at all levels to support the cause.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade formally launched—any year has to have a formal launch as well as informal ones—at the BBC on 22 January. We decided that it was highly appropriate to launch the year at the BBC, because of the excellence of the engineering that has enabled us now to accept broadcasting as one of our daily pleasures; and we are about to anticipate the next leap forward in broadcasting in terms of the digital age. The BBC engineers and all those engaged in the 60 years since television began, which we celebrated only recently, are the embodiment of what engineering can do and how engineering at the forefront of technology enables something which is otherwise simply a good invention or a good idea to become something that we can all enjoy.
The importance of engineers in the translation of a brainwave into something which can go into mass production and become available at a price that people can afford is often underestimated The skill of engineering at all stages of history has been most remarkable. I pay tribute to Trevor Baylis, who invented the clockwork radio, and the work that he has done for inventors, but many inventors need engineers to help them carry their ideas through to the marketplace.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire made two central points, first about education and secondly about the status of engineering. In the few moments that remain. I should like to respond to those points.
As my hon. Friend rightly says, education is obviously broadly a matter for the Department for Education and Employment, but, as Minister for Science and Technology, I have a profound interest in the subject. We need to ensure that more of our young people have an opportunity to prepare themselves for a career in engineering. That means that they need to be numerate, although perhaps in the context of the House too much stress on numeracy this week is not appropriate.
Young people need to have an excitement about the opportunities available to them through the sciences if they are to meet the qualifications required and the hurdles set for them to go into engineering in later life. Therefore, at school it is necessary to trigger that enthusiasm and give young people the belief that the career they might want to follow will be worth while.
The education figures are not that discouraging. I do not have time to go through them all, but we have seen an increase in the past year, for example, in the number of students taking mathematics and computing at A-level. We have also seen a worrying fall in chemistry and physics. Biology was about even.
The figures are not absolutely clear. One of the things that Sir Ron Dearing will have to do in his review for the Government of the future of higher education is to take account of the work that he has already done on A-levels and vocational qualifications to see how we can increase the opportunities for our best young people to go into science, engineering and technology at university. A survey in 1992 showed that 29 per cent. of all degrees awarded in Britain were in science or engineering, with engineering disciplines accounting for almost half.
The other aspect is the status of engineers. It is worthwhile underlining the fact that the job opportunities for engineers are extremely good That is part of the status. There are 84 chartered engineers on the boards of the top 100 companies. The Royal Academy of Engineering tells me that one has a higher chance of being a director of one of the leading companies in Britain if one is an engineer than if one is an accountant. That is a promising opportunity for those who are looking to come into the market.
Of the engineering graduates going into the job market, 37 per cent. secured places on graduate training schemes, compared with an average of 25 per cent. of all graduates; and 75 per cent. of engineering and technology graduates are able to secure first jobs in the career of their choice. Engineering graduate salaries are higher than those of many of their peers. The average starting salary of an engineer is £15,900, compared with an average starting salary for all graduates of £12,250.
it is important to bring such statistics out into the open, because too often it is thought that potential engineers will be in a difficult position. Not least, it is important to stress that the unemployment rate for engineers, at 2·5 per cent. in the United Kingdom, is significantly lower than general unemployment of 6·5 per cent. and graduate unemployment of 5 per cent. Those statistics underpin the good news about engineering.
The task for the Year of Engineering Success is to take that good news and broaden the appeal of engineering and increase the estimation of the value and status of engineers in our society and what they contribute. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire made about the legal use of the term "engineer" I know that it is a regular subject for discussion I pay tribute to all those people who have made the effort to become chartered engineers, and to the incorporated engineers who do a great deal of the day-to-day engineering tasks in industry and elsewhere. I also pay great tribute to those in the science world who do basic research in engineering and make a long-term contribution to the success of the economy. All of them have their merit.
I should certainly like to raise the status of engineers, and I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said, but the Year of Engineering Success is a tremendous tribute to the work now being done by those companies which back it in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that it is genuinely a success, because the British economy will increasingly need engineers to be competitive in this difficult world, adding value, coming forward with ideas, and making them available to members of the general public.
If more of the general public looked around their households, they would clearly see how many of the products on which they depended—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LEVER PARK BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 4 February.

SOUTHAMPTON INTERNATIONAL BOAT SHOW BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Disabled People (Employment)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received about the employment of disabled people; and if she will make a statement. [11724]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): We often receive representations about a wide range of issues relating to the employment of disabled people, who now have important new rights in this area as a result of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Mr. Thurnham: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work done by the Shaw trust, which has placed more than 2,000 people with disabilities in jobs at a cost of some £4,000 per job? Is she aware that the factory jobs at Remploy now cost three times as much? Does she not think that the subsidy of nearly £100 million to Remploy, if it were used as effectively as the Shaw trust uses its funds, could provide an additional 10,000 jobs for people with disabilities?

Mrs. Gillan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the Shaw trust as an excellent example of what can be achieved by an organisation to ensure that valuable members of our society, although severely disabled, can enter employment successfully. The work of Mr. Tim Papé is well known to the Department and he continues to have a good dialogue with my noble Friend Lord Henley, who has direct responsibility for these matters. Last year the Department provided nearly £9.5 million in support of placements with the Shaw trust, and the Employment Service has every intention of continuing to contract with the trust to enable it to continue its excellent work.
Remploy factories are expensive by comparison with supported placements, but that is because they provide different types of support. When we compare like with like, Remploy's version of supported placement into work delivers placements at a unit cost which compares favourably with that of other supported placement providers.

Mr. Alan Howarth: How many people who were on incapacity benefit have simply disappeared from the records rather than going on to jobseeker's allowance or moving into a job? Does the hon. Lady know? Does she care?

Mrs. Gillan: I think that that is a most ungracious question. Everybody knows that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 strikes a balance between the disabled and the employer and we ensure that no disabled person receives less favourable treatment. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome the Act and to talk about the potential that it has provided for all disabled people in this country.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring of the operation of the jobseeker's allowance that she is undertaking [11726]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): The Employment Service and the Benefits Agency are carrying out continuous monitoring of the operation of jobseeker's allowance and produce regular joint reports to the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister confirm that £10·7 million has already been spent on consultants to introduce the jobseeker's allowance? Can he tell us how much more is to be spent on consultancy fees in the future? From his monitoring of the operation of the jobseeker's allowance, can he tell us how many people have been denied all benefits as a result of failing jobseeker's allowance interviews? What monitoring is he undertaking of the low wages that many people are forced to accept for jobs that they are forced to take because of the draconian and inhuman way in which the jobseeker's allowance operates?

Mr. Forth: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's first series of questions are: yes, no, and I do not know at this stage. The answer to his last question is that, if he can produce any evidence to back up the ridiculous overstatement and hyperbole to which he is accustomed, we will of course consider it, but I am not impressed by wild accusations of that type made across the Floor of the House of Commons. They do not help the individuals allegedly involved, or anyone else.

Children's Homework

Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received regarding arrangements for children's homework. [11727]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I have received a number of representations on homework from various bodies and members of the public.

Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it—heaven forbid—we end up with a Labour Government and a Welsh Assembly, we would be placed in a ludicrous situation in which Members of Parliament from Wales will be able to vote in Westminster on issues such as homework while Members of Parliament in England will have no say on education matters in Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would be a ludicrous result and gives every indication of why we need to reject the concept of a Welsh Assembly and of a Labour Government?

Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his ingenious question. I am sure that the distressing situation that he describes will not arise. Conservative Members believe that it is quite clear that the most effective way to


encourage good practice on homework, whether in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, is to disseminate guidance based on research and practical experience.

Ms Estelle Morris: At least there seems to be some agreement that homework raises standards, but why do not the Government show some leadership in ensuring that all children can benefit from it? Does the Secretary of State not understand that the very half-hearted initiative that she announced recently, which will not benefit all children, is wrong, and that she should support Labour's policy of minimum homework targets and a national network of homework centres to support those children who have home backgrounds where homework is difficult?

Mrs. Shephard: It is neither necessary nor—perhaps more importantly—practical for the Government to introduce a legal framework to govern homework arrangements in all our 25,000 schools. The important thing is to disseminate good practice and guidance so that schools fully understand that it is in their interests and those of their pupils to have sensible homework policies.
It is perhaps typical of the Labour party that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) says that he supports an approach whereby the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would be given the task of checking that all the nation's 7 million pupils had done their homework, followed no doubt by his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who would tuck them up in bed.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although homework is important, what counts is what is taught and the methodology that is used in schools? Does she agree that we have shown leadership in education, but all the education reforms that we have introduced have been opposed by Opposition Members, both Labour and Liberal Democrat?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A very important difference between our policies and practice and those of the Opposition is that we have consistently concentrated on measures to raise standards by means of inspections, performance tables, tests and the national curriculum. The Labour party, which actually voted against the setting up of the Office for Standards in Education, is less than convincing when it proposes homework by law.

Teachers' Early Retirement Scheme

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations she has received (a) in support and (b) against the Government's proposed changes to the teachers' early retirement scheme. [11728]

Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend has so far received 36 written representations from consultees on the Government's proposed changes to the early retirement arrangements for teachers, and a large number of individual responses.

Mr. Williams: Why do 80 to 90 per cent. of teachers want to retire early? Is that not a sad comment on the

morale of the profession after 18 years of Conservative Government? Would it not be wiser for Ministers to sit down with local authorities and teacher representatives to work out solutions to the problem? Has not the Government's handling of it been inept, turning a problem into a crisis and the exodus into a stampede?

Mrs. Gillan: No, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the handling of the matter has been inept. I would go so far as to say that there is much common ground between the Labour party and the Government on the teachers' superannuation scheme. A great deal of misinformation and dissembling has been going on, which has scared and unsettled many teachers and retired teachers.
I want to assure teachers from the Dispatch Box that we have no intention of ending the early retirement scheme, and that we are carefully examining the responses to the consultation. All those will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in due course.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for modestly extending the consultation period. May I make a plea to her for it to be extended still further, to enable meaningful discussions to go on between the Government and all the teacher unions involved, particularly the National Association of Head Teachers, which undertook a constructive and positive lobby of Parliament last week? Does my hon. Friend accept that, if she can get Treasury permission, it would be more appropriate for the new arrangements to take effect from the new academic year in September rather than from 1 April?

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. I reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give careful consideration to the representations that have been made by the teachers unions, local education authorities and others, including the National Association of Head Teachers, and that she will make an announcement shortly. We shall consider all the options that have been placed before the Government.

Mr. Don Foster: Further to that answer, why cannot the Minister give a straight answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? Why cannot she tell him and the House that she will extend the consultation period to enable a wide range of alternative suggestions to be considered? Does she accept that, although changes to the teachers' pension scheme are needed, her Department's handling of the matter has been nothing short of a public relations disaster, and that as a result it has further reduced the morale of all those in the teaching profession?

Mrs. Gillan: I consider a 12-week consultation period sufficient. No teachers, unions or representative bodies could believe that their representations had not been taken into account. If there are any further representations, we shall be pleased to receive them before the end of the week.
During the Committee stage of the Education Bill, I challenged the Opposition parties to make representations and to put forward their solutions to the problems with the teachers' superannuation scheme, but


no such representations were forthcoming. Obviously, the Opposition parties have no solution to the problem, and we must act.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is only part of the wider issue of teacher morale? Has she shared my experience that many teachers in the state sector believe genuinely, albeit wrongly, that the Government do not value their work? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to say that her experience is the same as mine—that teachers in the maintained sector in my constituency are overwhelmingly first-rate professionals doing a first-rate job?

Mrs. Gillan: I have no problem agreeing with my hon. Friend's remarks. I draw the attention of all hon. Members to an article by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement last week, in which she stated:
The whole country owes a great deal to teachers. Teachers are highly skilled: they are dedicated: they work very hard. The improvement in pupils' achievement, and hence the increase in the skills of the population, could not have been achieved without the help of teachers.
No matter how often Ministers make such comments, the press never report them. We have never criticised the teachers and we seize every opportunity, from the Dispatch Box and from other platforms, to praise their skills and dedication.

Mr. Kilfoyle: May we now put to the Minister the questions that we asked in Committee, in the hope that perhaps today she will answer the most relevant one? Will she confirm that the Government have done a deal with local authorities to enable them to claw back the costs of early retirement from individual schools? Will she also confirm that on 18 December last the Funding Agency for Schools wrote to grant-maintained schools offering quite a generous settlement of 100 per cent. of retirement costs? Will she further confirm that the Government have a twin-track approach—one that is preferential to the grant-maintained sector and another for the rest of the teaching profession who are members of the teachers' superannuation scheme?

Mrs. Gillan: I shall not allow the issue of teachers' pensions to become an attack on grant-maintained schools. There is no doubt that the Opposition parties would abolish grant-maintained schools. How would that help the morale of teachers in those schools? The hon. Gentleman knows that it is untrue to claim that GM schools are receiving preferential treatment. The Funding Agency for Schools will support some premature retirements and the local authority settlement allows for a continuing programme of retirements at 75 per cent. of current levels. There is no reason why local education authorities should not continue to offer premature retirements under the proposals.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that her Department has received a large number of representations on this question and that it would therefore not be unreasonable to extend the consultation period somewhat? In light of the sheer volume of

representations, will she consider that possibility, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Department has received a large number of representations, and I have signed more than 1,000 letters to constituents. However, I believe that a consultation period of 12 weeks and the courtesy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has extended to organisations to come to see her and me is sufficient. I assure my hon. Friend that the points reasonably made during the consultation period will be taken into account.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the effect of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance claimants on the unemployment figures since October 1996. [11730]

Mr. Forth: Unemployment is falling primarily because more jobs are being created by enterprise and business in an environment created by the Government. The jobseeker's allowance will help unemployed people to find work and get better value for money for the taxpayer.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is hardly anyone in Britain, apart from the Tory bunch opposite, who does not realise that the jobseeker's allowance is another one of the many fiddles—there have been about 30 in all—used by the Government to kid people that there are only 1·8 million people out of work? The truth, as the News of the World reported on 17 November, is that 4.1 million people are out of work.
However, I can tell the Minister that good times are coming: I have just left a meeting of the Labour party national executive committee and we have decided to keep the jobseeker's allowance just long enough to clear the Tories out of office and make them stand in line—unless they moonlight—so that they will know how it feels to have to queue up to receive the paltry amount of money that the Tory Government offers. After that, we shall abolish the jobseeker's allowance.

Mr. Forth: I assume from the hon. Gentleman's comments, while he still has a meaningful voice on the national executive committee—

Mr. Skinner: Consultations are still taking place.

Mr. Forth: The House eagerly awaits a statement from the hon. Gentleman about what occurred in the national executive committee today. Perhaps he will catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I assume from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that, were there to be a Labour Government, one of its first actions would be to declare that there are more than 4 million people out of work. That would be an interesting proposition. That is the logic behind the hon. Gentleman's comments.
The fact is that the Labour party believes what the International Labour Organisation and the European Commission have signed up to, which is that the labour force survey shows that about 2 million people in this


country are out of work. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take that issue up with his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench: I will leave them to sort it out among themselves.
The jobseeker's allowance is a genuine attempt to ensure that unemployed people who expect support from the taxpayer through benefits are available for and actively seeking work. If they are, they will have the full support of the Employment Service. I am delighted to say that, as a result of that measure, unemployment continues to fall.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that getting rid of a helpful allowance is an interesting proposition which would bring back the winter of discontent and the good time that we all enjoyed under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. Most hon. Members remember very clearly what happened under the Labour Government—that is to say, the winter of discontent. It will be interesting to hear what the Labour party says in the next few weeks and months about its commitments on trade union and industrial relations law and on the jobseeker's allowance. That will be a key test of Labour's proposals. I await a statement from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to clarify the position.

Mr. Pearson: Is the Minister aware of the widespread dismay felt by jobseekers in the west midlands at recent reports that half of manufacturing companies are experiencing recruitment difficulties while those jobseekers have not had even the merest sniff of a job? Why does not the Government scrap crap schemes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—such as project work and provide real assistance to people who are out of work?

Mr. Forth: That was obviously an example of new Labour, new language. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is in close collusion with his hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who are constantly telling us about literacy and higher educational standards. If what he has just said is an example of their drive for higher standards, it does not bode well for the future.

Education Funding (Lancashire)

Mr. Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received from Lancashire county council about education funding. [11731]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): Lancashire county council has recently made a number of representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about education funding. I met representatives of Lancashire county council's education committee on 20 November last year to discuss funding for education in Lancashire.

Mr. Atkins: Is it the case that Lancashire county council received a 3·8 per cent. increase this year on top of a 5·5 per cent. increase last year and earlier increases, largely as a result of pressure from the county's

Conservative Members of Parliament? Does not the Labour county councillors' whingeing for more money fly in the face of the oft-repeated statements by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor that there will no more money for local councils under a Labour Government? Should not Lancashire county council's Labour-controlled education committee rearrange its priorities so that it puts our schoolchildren before its dogma?

Mr. Squire: My right hon. Friend is right in every respect. I congratulate him and my hon. Friends in Lancashire on the representations that they have made to the Government on education funding. He is also right to point out that, in the past two years alone, Lancashire has received increases of some £45 million in its education standard spending assessment. It is now up to the council, given its total resources, to determine its priorities. I hope that, like the Government, it will put education first.

Mr. Pickthall: Will the Minister confirm that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, from 1992–93 to 1996–97—which is a realistic period to take—the weighted increase in primary and secondary standard spending assessments per pupil in Lancashire was 3·7 per cent., while during the same period cumulative inflation in the education budget was 13·3 per cent., so that under the Government Lancashire has had to wrestle with a reduction of 10 per cent. in its schools budget? To fill that gap, it has had to rip all its non-statutory education obligations to bits. Will the Minister advise the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) to talk to the treasurer's department in Lancashire, which will gladly provide him with those figures and a lot more besides?

Mr. Squire: I certainly will not confirm the hon. Gentleman's figures without notice, but if he wants confirmation from me, he need only table an appropriate written question. As for the wider issue, he clearly overlooks the fact that, throughout the period that he mentioned, and for many years before that, the county council has been responsible for determining its priorities. Nothing in the sums given by the Government requires it to make the cuts in primary expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Primary School Funding (Cheshire)

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on primary school funding in Cheshire. [11732]

Mr. Robin Squire: Cheshire's provisional standard spending assessment per primary school pupil in 1997–98 is £1,976. That is £73 per pupil, or 3·8 per cent. more than this year. Now it is up to the authority to ensure that the increase in spending power that we are providing reaches the schools.

Mrs. Winterton: Given that we are spending more per pupil than ever before, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Cheshire county council has increased spending on primary education and is now halfway up the shire county league table rather than bumping along at the bottom, as it was under the last Labour administration at county hall? Will he now implement the recommendations of the area


cost adjustment review—notwithstanding the opposition of the four local government associations, which are dominated by Labour and Liberal administrations—so as to ensure that both primary and secondary schools in my constituency of Congleton receive further fully justified additional finance?

Mr. Squire: I congratulate Cheshire local education authority, under its Conservative chairmanship, on giving education higher priority. As for the review of the area cost adjustment, my hon. Friend will be aware that we decided not to implement the recommendations in 1997–1998 essentially because more work needs to be done on the review team's findings. My hon. Friend is also aware—she referred to it in her question—that, when we consulted the four local authority associations, not one of them wanted the review to be implemented in the coming year.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that Cheshire primary schools now have real problems because of consistent underfunding of the county? That has not just happened; it has been the case for a long time. Moreover, the imposition of the voucher scheme has considerable implications for both primary and nursery school places. Will the Minister now admit that his education policies are failing the children of Cheshire?

Mr. Squire: On the contrary—to cite, in particular, the policy to which the hon. Lady adverted, far from damaging education in Cheshire, the nursery voucher scheme gives Cheshire and every local education authority an opportunity to enhance current pre-school provision. In the hon. Lady's constituency, more vouchers will shortly be going out than there are currently places for four-year-olds. That will provide an opportunity for her local education authority, along with all the others, to play a part in the expansion.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: In connection with education funding in Cheshire, some of us are becoming tired of the continual argument between local authorities and Government about education spending—I certainly am. Does my hon. Friend accept that some hon. Members still believe that education funding should be taken out of local government altogether?

Mr. Squire: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. It would clearly reduce the number of questions that I have to answer, so I can see an advantage there.
As my hon. Friend knows, thanks to his wide and long experience in education, there will always be discussions between Government and local authorities. We have a national system that seeks to distribute funds fairly throughout all authorities. Most important, since taking office the Government have increased funds per pupil in all our schools by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms. That is a tremendous achievement, of which I may need to remind Opposition Members continually.

Young People (Opportunities)

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will introduce measures to improve educational, training and employment opportunities for young people. [11733]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Our White Paper, "Learning to Compete", the first ever on policies for the 14 to 19 age group, sets out a coherent approach to maximise the potential of young people and their readiness for work.

Mr. Canavan: Is it not one of the great national scandals of our time that about a third of unemployed people are under 25? Is it not becoming increasingly obvious that this Tory Government offer no hope to those young people, who need the election of a Labour Government committed to using a windfall tax on the privatised utilities to provide real training opportunities and real jobs for 250,000 unemployed young people, whom the Government have deprived of the right to work?

Mr. Paice: The statistics with which the hon. Gentleman started his question are spurious. The proportion of young people who are unemployed is considerably lower than the figure that he gave. The figure that he and his colleagues continually quote includes a substantial number of full-time students who may be looking for a part-time job, but no one in any other country or in any walk of life other than that of a Labour politician would classify them as unemployed. Those are labour force survey statistics.
I am sure that we are all delighted to hear that the Labour party is at least sticking to its policy on the windfall tax, but the number of items that the tax is apparently going to pay for is amazing. Labour has clearly costed all the items that the tax will pay for, but it is unable to tell us how much it will be and who will pay it.

Sir David Madel: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as long as standards go on rising in schools, the Government will continue to support the expansion of university education?

Mr. Paice: Clearly, we want standards to go on rising in schools and, as my hon. Friend says, our policies are achieving that. As he knows, we have asked Sir Ron Dearing to undertake a full study into all aspects of the future of higher education and, clearly, its expansion is one of the points that he will address.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that there may be an opportunity for more firms throughout the nation to follow the example of a firm in my constituency, which brings in school children one day a week, employs them during holidays and pays them a reasonable wage? As a result, the children are trained in work skills in a real situation and are prepared to take jobs in that industry. Does that not help in relation to their training and opportunities?

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is precisely the sort of arrangement that we envisage in part of the White Paper to which I have referred. Building links between individual businesses and their local schools enables young people to grow up and obtain the traditional academic skills from school while learning the essential skills that will equip them for work.

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that youth unemployment in Britain is one of the lowest in the


European Union, entirely as a result of the Government's policies, but that that would be undermined by the Labour party's proposals? Did my hon. Friend see last weekend's interesting interview that Mr. John Humphrys conducted with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the Labour party spokesman, who made the astonishing claim that paternity leave as proposed by the Labour party would not cost anything because it would be unpaid? Does my hon. Friend agree that that astonishing economic illiteracy shows the bankruptcy of all the Opposition's plans?

Mr. Paice: I am afraid that I did not see the interview to which my hon. Friend refers—I try to avoid such nightmares—but I am not a bit surprised by the economic illiteracy that was apparently demonstrated. It is clear that many policies under the heading of European Union social policies, which the Government have resisted, but to which the Labour party is apparently committed, would destroy jobs and would cause youth unemployment to rise rather than continue to fall.

Mrs. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that Calderdale council, with all-party support, has twice tried to get a regeneration bid for Ovenden based mainly on employment and training? As Ovenden in my constituency is an area of high unemployment, will the Minister lend his weight to the next bid?

Mr. Paice: As I am sure the hon. Lady realises, no Minister can commit himself to supporting a bid that has not materialised. Obviously, I am interested in what she says, but she will appreciate that there are many competitive bids for single regeneration moneys. They are judged at regional level and on merit. Without further knowledge of the case, I cannot say more.

Mr. Garnier: Has the Department studied the likely effect of the removal of child benefit for over-16-year-olds on educational, training and employment opportunities?

Mr. Paice: I do not think that it takes a great deal of research to realise that the confiscation of more than £1,000 per family in respect of an offspring who is about to study for A-levels or enter post-16 education is bound to have a deterrent effect on the future of further education and the achievement of qualifications. It is confiscation—there is no other word for it. That is Labour's proposition, and it sits ill with the party's proposals to help young people to get into work.

Mr. Blunkett: That, of course, is not our policy at all. Did the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) constitute the Government's response to the heartfelt appeal by the Rev. David Shepherd, the Bishop of Liverpool, earlier this week in relation to unemployment and the despair and feelings of the quarter of a million young men and women under the age of 25 who have been out of education or employment for more than six months? Will he confirm that the use of our proposed windfall tax to put them back into work would not only give them hope of being able to earn their living and create families, but would give their younger brothers and sisters hope that,

if they work at school they too will not be alienated and disaffected by being set aside by the Government and society?

Mr. Paice: It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman speaks of about 245,000 young people being out of work, whereas the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that it was somehow a third of 1·8 million.

Mr. Canavan: The total is 600,000 under 25.

Mr. Paice: I think that I detect a split coming on.
Of course we do not want young people to be out of work, but for the hon. Gentleman to use hyperbole undermines not only our efforts but the truth. The vast majority of young people who are out of work have had many jobs. They go in and out of work quite frequently: that is in the nature of being young. There is a hard core of young people for whom the education service has not fulfilled its obligations, and they find it difficult to break into the world of work.
We do not want such a hard core, and that is why we announced in the White Paper the relaunch strategy, which will bring together many good schemes that are already on the ground and encourage more. That will reach out to these people, many of whom have lost contact with what is going on in society and will bring them back into the world of work. By using hype and hysteria, the hon. Gentleman is devaluing the work that thousands of good people are doing to address this issue.

Primary School Funding (Staffordshire)

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per primary school pupil in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the figure was in 1978–79, at constant prices. [11734]

Mr. Robin Squire: In 1994–95, the latest year for which data are available, Staffordshire spent £1,645 per pre-primary and primary pupil, in 1996–97 prices. In 1978–79, the equivalent figure was £1,240.

Sir David Knox: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, although expenditure per primary school pupil in Staffordshire is lower than the national average, there has nevertheless been a very significant increase in expenditure under this Government, whereas there was a real-terms reduction in expenditure under the last Labour Government?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, who has been a Member of Parliament for many years, well remembers events under that Labour Government, and he is absolutely right. One can reach only one conclusion if one compares the Government's dedication to funding education and commitment to higher standards with our predecessor's: do not trust another Labour Government.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister realise that primary schools in Staffordshire could be assisted greatly if the £2 million of taxpayers' money that is being paid under


the assisted places scheme to the St. Joseph's school and the Newcastle-under-Lyme school were redistributed to provide 100 more primary school teachers?

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman repeats Labour's pledge—some would call it vandalism—to abolish assisted places. However, he has not repeated the fact that, in the first year, abolition of the scheme would save under £5 million. As he knows—because it has been reiterated by Labour spokesmen—that £5 million is somehow supposed to produce class sizes of no more than 30, whereas the minimum cost of doing so would be between £150 million and £180 million. It does not add up, and it is a deceit on parents across the country.

Mr. Stephen: Is it not the case that the Government provide more money per pupil than ever before in the nation's history, and that the reason why results are not as good as they should be is half-baked 1960s teaching methods, which still find favour with so many left-wing authorities, and waste of taxpayers' money by those very authorities?

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is completely right about the highest-ever sums being spent on education. On standards, whether we are considering examination results or unauthorised absences from school, time and again Labour-controlled authorities are at the bottom of every table. Far from providing an answer on how to raise standards in our schools, Labour demonstrates by its actions that it has no idea what standards in school really mean.

Part-time Employment

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the change in the proportion of (a) men and (b) women at work who were employed on a part-time basis between (i) 1979 and 1990 and (ii) 1990 and 1996. [11735]

Mr. Paice: According to the work force in employment series, since 1979 the proportion of men working part time has increased from 6 to 11 per cent. and of women from 40 to 46 per cent. The labour force survey, which is internationally recognised, shows lower figures, but it did not start until 1984.

Mr. Corbett: Does not the near-doubling of the number of men working part time and often on short-term contracts explain the growing feeling of insecurity among millions of people outside these walls? Will the Minister confirm that 84 out of 100 men returning to work enter part-time rather than full-time jobs, and, while he is at it, will he examine the labour force survey and confirm that it shows—despite the Government's claims to the contrary—that unemployment among women is rising? We are given fiddled figures from a Government whom no one can trust.

Mr. Paice: Survey after survey, including the labour force survey, demonstrates that about 87 per cent. of those in part-time work wish to be in part-time work. A very small percentage of those would rather have—

Mr. Corbett: The Minister is wrong.

Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman quoted the labour force survey as a source of fact, but he now questions my

reply, which is based on it. It is incorrect to mention the concepts of part-time jobs and job security in the same sentence, as the hon. Gentleman does. There has been a small increase in the number of part-time jobs, and the figures that I quoted show it. However, the increase does not relate to the level of job security.
The recently published British social attitude survey shows very little evidence of increasing job insecurity. More than 50 per cent. of people have been with the same employer for five years, and a third of employees have been with the same employer for more than 10 years. The fact is that the vast majority of people are in normal, stable jobs. Over the past quarter, the entire net increase in jobs created have been full-time jobs.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is it not the case that the only thing that creates jobs, be they part-time or full-time, is the success of British companies and businesses in earning wealth for this country? No amount of fiddling around with increased taxes on industry by one means or another will improve real opportunities for people in future.

Mr. Paice: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that increased taxes would have quite the opposite effect. Whatever the good intentions behind policies, they can often have a negative result. If one puts burdens on business, for whatever good reason, one will end up destroying jobs, and it is time that the Labour party recognised that.

Mr. Hain: Why do the Government not come clean about the fact that there has been a huge shift from well-paid, full-time jobs to badly paid, part-time jobs, and that that has hit total earnings? Combining full-time and part-time work, as the Library has done for me for the first time, one sees that, over the past three years, real median earnings have fallen by more than 1 per cent. If that is a Tory recovery, thank goodness we do not have a recession. We have high taxes, low wages and job insecurity. This is a Del Boy Tory recovery.

Mr. Paice: This country has more people at work than any other major European country. Our unemployment has fallen by 900,000 since the peak and is continuing to fall. There have been 600,000 new jobs in the economy since the recovery began. Those are the facts. The Opposition are concerned about earnings. The only way in which people will have their earnings increased is if the businesses they work for improve their productivity and profitability, and are therefore able to employ more people at higher wages.

Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the significant thing about the UK economy is that we have falling unemployment—it has fallen by 1 million since its peak—whereas our major European partners have increasing unemployment? Is not the reason for that the fact that they have imposed the social costs on their economies that the Labour party wants to impose on this economy, which would destroy jobs in this country?

Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend refers to the burdens that would be put on business by the Labour party's social policies. As I said earlier, such policies may have a good intention; I do not deny that. They have, however, a


deleterious effect on jobs. One has only to look at all the major economies in Europe which have higher unemployment and which also have in place most of the policies that Labour espouses to realise that. That might be a coincidence if it was true of just one country, but the fact is that all the major economies in Europe share the features of high social costs and much higher unemployment than us. That is no coincidence; it is a direct result of the policies that Labour would impose on Britain.

University Research Assessment Exercise

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the benefits accruing from the research assessment exercise in universities. [11736]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The research assessment exercise supports our policy that research funding should selectively reward excellence, allowing world-class research to flourish and focusing increasing activity on higher-rated departments.

Dr. Wright: Is the Secretary of State aware of the way in which the research assessment exercise has preoccupied the attention of universities and their staff? We hear of staff being transferred between institutions, sometimes with transfer fees, to inflate the research ratings. We have the unreadable in search of the unteachable as research is produced that nobody wants to read or needs to read, while teaching is being devalued. Is it not time to sort this nonsense out?

Mrs. Shephard: It is a peer review system that has been refined over 10 years, and it is as robust and sensitive as the funding bodies can make it. The hon. Gentleman will wish to place alongside it the quality assessment mechanisms developed by the universities. The mobility of academics is not necessarily unhelpful for university institutions and the health of the research base. As I am sure he is aware, research is increasingly globalised, so his criticism does not logically follow.

Mr. Forman: I welcome the good sense of seeking to concentrate our university research in a smaller number of centres of excellence, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend has stated, but I wonder whether the process could be advanced with slightly less paperwork than is currently required. Some of the frequent complaints from universities are along those lines.

Mrs. Shephard: The review was certainly thorough. The operation will have to be looked at again now that the exercise has been completed. The first necessity when allocating £700 million-worth of research is to do the job thoroughly.

University Staff Recruitment

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to retain and recruit high-quality staff in British universities. [11737]

Mrs. Shephard: The staffing of universities is for institutions themselves, which are responsible for setting their own levels of pay and conditions of service.

Mr. Sheerman: Is not the Secretary of State worried that a combination of extremely low pay and a growing number of short-term contracts—many universities have more than half their staff on such contracts—will depress standards even in the medium term? That must concern all hon. Members. Is it not time that the Government realised what an asset we have in our universities? If we run down that asset, our possibilities for wealth creation and the regeneration of local communities will be severely damaged.

Mrs. Shephard: I agree that the higher education sector is a priceless asset for this country because of its research base and the opportunities that it affords us to increase our global competitiveness. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under this Government there has been an expansion in the number of young people going to university from 12 per cent. in 1979 to 30 per cent. now. It is also encouraging that, while this country accounts for about 1 per cent. of the world's population, our universities account for 5 per cent. of the world's research. The sector is in good health and is doing well.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that pay and conditions of service are matters for the universities. Royal Society research shows that the number of British academics returning to employment in Britain exceeds the number going abroad. I do not think that there is cause for concern. Investigating that issue is one of the tasks of the national committee of inquiry into higher education.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Lancaster university on its ability to attract the highest calibre of staff, enabling it to be placed third in the recent research assessments, after only Oxford and Cambridge, which it hopes to overtake eventually?

Mrs. Shephard: I should be delighted to congratulate the university of Lancaster. In the recent exercise, the best universities have done better than last time and new universities and higher education colleges have significantly increased their number of active researchers and have improved their performance. I am happy to congratulate the university.

Mr. Bryan Davies: We all understand why morale in universities is not high. What about the bombshell that the Secretary of State suddenly exploded this week among further education colleges? Will she confirm that she has refused to fund the demand-led expansion of student numbers, to which colleges are already committed, with students on their courses and private providers already under contract? What is the explanation for that disastrous decision? Why has it been taken now, in the middle of the education year? Has she any idea of the number of colleges that will be plunged into deficit as a result of the decision? How many jobs will be lost in the public and private sectors? Does she accept that the House requires an explanation?

Mrs. Shephard: I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's first allegation, because it is not true. The proposals announced in the recent Budget provided a funding increase of £80 million to existing baselines of further education for the next two years. The plans provide for 20 per cent. growth in the number of students in further


education between 1993–94 and 1998–1999. However, I am discussing with the Further Education Funding Council ways of meeting costs arising from the demand-led element of its funding this year. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be exceedingly wary before giving any impression that additional funding pledges might be the intention of his party.

Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the superb work of the Open university, of which you, Madam Speaker, have the honour to be chancellor and which is in my constituency. It is currently rated 10th out of more than 100 such institutions in terms of its research work, in addition to producing by a multiple factor the largest number of top-quality graduates of any university in the kingdom.

Madam Speaker: It has also just won the Queen's anniversary prize for higher and further education.

Mr. Butler: Indeed, Madam Speaker, it has also just won the Queen's award.

Mrs. Shephard: Perhaps I should congratulate you, Madam Speaker, as chancellor of that excellent institution. The innovative work by the Open university is possibly showing the way for the development of the delivery of learning systems for the next century. One of its most interesting qualities is its work overseas—it has 17 outlets in Russia alone. I am delighted that you are the chancellor of such a first-class establishment.

Teachers (Morale)

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to improve morale among schoolteachers. [11738]

Mrs. Gillan: The Government recognise the skill and dedication of the vast majority of teachers, and say so at every opportunity.

Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister accept that the Government's insistence on placing the principles of competition and market forces at the heart of the education system has contributed to the reduction in teacher morale and that the continuing campaign on grant-maintained schools is an exacerbating factor? How will she ensure that information provided to parents by the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation in England and Wales when ballots are held is accurate and complete?

Will she take it from me that at a meeting in my constituency last Monday night, parents, teachers and the public were widely convinced that they had been seriously misled by representatives of that organisation?

Mrs. Gillan: I cannot agree with a single word that the hon. Gentleman says. As far as the Government are concerned, high morale goes with good schools, and our policies for improving standards will also improve morale. I know what would be bad for my morale if I were a teacher: the prospect of a Labour Government, who would destroy grammar schools, grant-maintained schools and the assisted places scheme, attack independent schools, reverse the nursery voucher scheme and turn back all the progress that the Government have made on education. If I were a teacher, the prospect of a Labour Government would certainly destroy my morale.

Mr. Dover: Will the Minister accept that any low morale among schoolteachers in Lancashire is due to the fact that, in the past two years, the Government have provided an extra £45 million in education spending, but precious little of that has been passed down to the schools?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have increasingly, year on year, provided more funds for education, and the local education authorities should be answerable for how much of that money reaches the chalkface. The more that reaches our schools, the better it is for teacher morale.

Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister aware that, only a few months ago, I brought a deputation from the city of Manchester to see one of her colleagues? We pointed out that the city had been starved of funds for building maintenance and that a £50 million deficiency had built up. Roofs are letting rain in, the electrics are deficient, new boilers are required and children have been evacuated from schools by bus because of the conditions. Will not that affect the morale of teachers and schoolchildren? It is happening up and down the country.

Mrs. Gillan: I should have thought that teachers' morale would have been enhanced because they were pleased by the local government funding settlement for 1997–98, which allows 3.6 per cent. more for education than in 1996–97. The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to his local education authority, which is responsible for the fabric of its schools. He should not ask the Government questions: he should ask his local education authority.

Hunger Strikers (Rochester Prison)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn(by private notice): To ask what action has been taken by the Home Secretary concerning hunger strikers at HMP Rochester.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Since 6 January, a number of immigration detainees in the detainee centre at HMP Rochester have been refusing regular prison food. Since that date, the number of those involved in the protest has fluctuated considerably. According to the prison, as of today, the number of those involved is 17, although that figure is subject to constant change.
Since Monday 27 January, a small number of the protesters have claimed to be refusing fluids. The most recent information indicates that there are currently six who are doing so. They are being held in the prison's health care wing.
Various arguments are advanced on behalf of the protesters. It is argued that asylum seekers who have committed no criminal offence should not be held in detention. It is also argued that immigration detainees should not be held in a Prison Service establishment. A third argument is that adequate safeguards do not exist in relation to the use of detention. In particular, it is claimed that detainees do not have adequate access to the legal system. Let me take those arguments in turn.
As the Government have repeatedly made clear, detention is used only sparingly and only for those who it is believed would otherwise abscond. At any one time, only about 1 per cent. of those with asylum applications outstanding will be held in detention. It is inescapable, however, that if we are to enforce the immigration laws effectively, some carefully targeted use of detention must be made. More than 80 per cent. of successfully effected removals have involved detention at some stage. If we are to remove failed asylum seekers, we cannot dispense with the targeted use of detention. Indeed, the experience of other comparable countries is the same. We give detainees full reasons for their detention. Initially, that is done orally, and, at regular intervals subsequently, it is done in writing. Both are done in a language that they understand.
It is a regrettable fact that some failed asylum seekers will not comply with their conditions of temporary admission unless we detain them. There is wide-scale abuse of our procedures, and the potential for absconding is real. It would increase significantly if there were no use of detention.
Secondly, the use of prison establishments to provide some of the detention spaces is also unavoidable, in current circumstances. A small number of detainees simply present control or security problems that are so severe that there can be no question whatever of holding them elsewhere.
Additionally, the Prison Service has for many years provided a significant number of detention spaces for general detainees. It currently provides about half the detention estate for all immigration detainees, but that percentage has fallen in recent years with the opening of the new immigration detention centres at Campsfield house in Oxfordshire and Tinsley house near Gatwick. Furthermore, a policy of greater concentration of

immigration detainees in the Prison Service has successfully been implemented, with the bulk of such places now being provided by two establishments, Rochester and Haslar. Such accommodation is, of course, discrete from the rest of the prison.
Those in detention are not all there because they were detained at the port where they innocently asked for asylum. Thirty-four per cent. are illegal entrants, a small percentage are convicted criminals awaiting deportation, and others who absconded following an adverse decision will have had to be detained on detection. For example, among those involved in the fluids protests is one who has served a sentence of imprisonment for two convictions of indecent assault against children, was subsequently removed from the United Kingdom and then re-entered unlawfully. Another was detained by the police when found to be attempting further immigration deception. Nor is it so that many asylum seekers are held for inordinate periods. Of those involved in the fluids protests, half were detained either this month or last month.
Every effort is made to provide good facilities for immigration detainees. At Rochester, there are good physical education and library facilities, access to educational classes and the opportunity to pursue training courses. The greatest possible separation is maintained between immigration detainees and others who are held at Rochester. Detainees are held under remand conditions. They are, for example, allowed a two-hour visit each day from Monday to Saturday and all their varying dietary requirements are catered for. There is a well-equipped health care wing at Rochester, and detainees have access to medical care comparable to that which would be provided by a general practitioner to a member of the public.
On the question of safeguards, detention decisions, which are never taken lightly anyway, are reviewed at very frequent intervals and at senior levels in the immigration service. Moreover, detainees may in most circumstances seek bail or challenge their detention in the courts. Posters are displayed in detention centres giving details of sources of legal advice, and many detainees benefit from legal aid or from the services of statutorily funded organisations such as the Refugee Legal Centre or the Immigration Advisory Service.
The Government entirely understand the sensitivity that surrounds the detention of a small number of asylum seekers and other immigration cases. Detainees are always given priority in the immigration and nationality department, and a range of safeguards, including, of course, appeal to an independent adjudicator, are in place. Our objective is that, where detention is necessary, it should be for as short a period as possible, but arbitrary time limits would be incompatible with the fact that the need for detention to be extended often arises from circumstances beyond our control, such as attempts to stave off removal or, in dealing with a few countries, difficulties in securing documentation for a removable person.
However difficult some cases may be, there is no good reason for detainees to be refusing either food or fluids. It is clearly in their best interests to stop the activity now. I urge them to do so, and every effort is being made to persuade them to do so. I pay tribute to the prison staff, especially the medical staff who are looking after the detainees, and the immigration officers who visit the prison regularly with information and help.
We shall continue to monitor the situation on a very frequent basis, but those concerned must realise that only one course is in their best interests: for them to join the others at Rochester who have already ended their protest.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister explain why, if all immigration detainees are given statements in writing in their mother tongue, I received the following written answer from her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), two days ago? It said:
This is done orally, in a language which the person understands, through an interpreter if necessary. The Government see no justification for providing written reasons."—[Official Report, 27 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 1.]
What the Minister has said today is the exact opposite of what I was told only two days ago.
Could not the Minister have some sense of humanity and understanding of the outrage and grievance felt by people when they come to this country to seek asylum, within the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention, to find themselves banged up in prisons alongside criminals and treated as criminals? Is she not aware that 891 people are at present in custody in detention centres and prisons at a total annual cost of £20 million? They have an extremely serious grievance. This is not the first protest that has taken place, and I suspect that it will not be the last.
Instead of going on about the prison conditions, of which she paints a rosy picture, why does not the Minister begin to understand the sense of outrage felt by people who have been charged with nothing and have committed no crime, but have been put in prison and given no right of direct access to the courts? That is the flaw in the British legal system.
Is the Minister aware that one of those who is refusing fluids, Ejike Emeneki, is in a critical condition? I understand that he is in the process of being transferred to Medway hospital for treatment that may involve rehydration. Does she not understand that those who undertake a hunger and fluid strike protest do so not as some light lark, but because they are deeply upset and angry and feel that it is the only way to get her and her Government to take their grievances seriously?
Why do not we do as other European countries do, and end the practice of the routine imprisonment of asylum seekers? We would save ourselves a lot of money and give ourselves some credit in the world. At the moment, our reputation on human rights is extremely poor, because people see that we routinely imprison those who have fled from fear and oppression in other countries. Does the Minister accept that her attitude to the issue is a complete disgrace?

Miss Widdecombe: I am obliged to say that I think that the hon. Gentleman's attitude is a complete disgrace. He talks about our routinely imprisoning asylum seekers. How can it be described as a routine action, when out of 44,000 applicants only 750 have been detained? Indeed, we would not wish to detain people: it is very much in their interests and in ours if we do not have to do so. However, there are some cases, such as those that I have described, in which it is necessary.
The hon. Gentleman paints a completely false picture. It is not true that the majority of people whom we detain have come over here innocently declaring their intentions

at the port of entry. About one third—34 per cent.—are illegal entrants; others have overstayed; others are awaiting deportation following court convictions; and others have been picked up by the police for minor crime, but will not be prosecuted because we have decided to go for removal instead. All those people are quite rightly detained.
It is also true that there will be a percentage of detainees who have not been convicted of any crime in this country. That is because of the judgments that we make on their application and on the likelihood of their standing by our rules. Many of those detained have endeavoured to abscond, having already had their applications refused.
I repeat that the rules are that initially the people whom we have decided to detain must be given the reasons orally; and that thereafter it should be done monthly, in writing. That is my clear advice, from the most senior levels of the immigration service.

Dame Peggy Fenner: Has the percentage of people detained among asylum seekers—or alleged asylum seekers—declined since our introduction of the new rules last year? It is my recollection that it was said at that time that it was less than 2 per cent.; can my hon. Friend confirm that it is now about 1 per cent.? Did any of the six who are so tragically refusing liquid refreshment arrive in this country for a reason other than seeking asylum?

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents the constituency in which the events are taking place. The percentage of people detained fluctuates between 1 per cent. and 1·5 per cent. It does not go much higher than that, for the simple reason that, quite apart from the fact that we do not wish to do so, we do not have the facilities to detain on any large scale: we have only about 900 detention places in our system. However, as a result of our putting in 150 extra case workers, we have already significantly reduced the backlog. There has been a reduction of about 10,000 in the past 12 months or so, so there has been a considerable improvement.
My hon. Friend then asked me whether the six people who are refusing fluids, who had claimed asylum, had entered for other reasons. I am sure that she will be aware that, unless people put their details into the public domain, I do not do so. Nevertheless, I have already said that one of them had previously served a prison sentence, had been removed from this country and had then re-entered unlawfully. He then claimed asylum and has appealed against refusal of that. The other to whom I referred was picked up by the police when he was found to be attempting a further immigration deception. His claim for asylum had already been refused, but he had been granted temporary admission pending his appeal. When the further abuse took place, the temporary admission was cancelled and he was instead detained.
Without going into the considerable detail that I have, it would appear that all the remaining three have at some stage claimed asylum, but were not able to give satisfactory documentary evidence. Other reasons that I will not yet put into the public domain, although two cases involved third countries, have made us see fit to detain them.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Does the Minister recall that, when the Asylum and


Immigration Appeals Act 1993 was going through the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who at that time was responsible for these matters, predicted that the legislation would reduce the waiting time for applications to be heard to three months? Does she acknowledge that the latest figures show that, on average, it is almost 12 months before a decision is reached and that in the past 12 months not only the number of appeals but the time taken to deal with them has increased? Does she further acknowledge that those statistics demonstrate the tension that exists among the many asylum seekers in Britain, and that that is the underlying cause of the critical situation at Rochester?
Does the Minister accept that there is a high risk of events such as we have seen at Rochester recurring, because 60,000 people still await a decision on their application for asylum, and more than 800 of them are languishing in a detention centre or prison? Does she acknowledge the urgent need for new procedures to tackle the underlying cause of delay and to deal with circumstances such as those at Rochester, where people are so desperate that they are prepared to risk their lives, because they cannot get a decision from the Government on when their application will be heard and in what circumstances?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman calls on the Government to introduce new procedures. We have spent a considerable part of this Session introducing new procedures, which he and his hon. Friends have voted against. So he is clearly not remotely interested in procedures that will speed up the system. The backlog of enforcement appeals stands at some 13,000, but the hon. Gentleman's deduction that the protest in Rochester is the result of delays is not defensible on the basis of the information that we have before us.
For example, of the 750 people who were in detention last month, which is the latest snapshot figure I have, the overwhelming majority had been there for less than six months and only 30 had been there in excess of 12 months, all of whom had highly complicated cases. The House heard me say that, of the six people who claim to be refusing fluids, half were initially detained either this month or last month. So I do not feel that delays are the actual cause of frustration. Indeed, of those detained, some 75 to 80 per cent. have already had a decision.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that private notice questions deal with a specific issue, and I ask the many hon. Members who are standing to make their questions to the point and to ask them very briskly.

Sir Jim Lester: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is a difference between the regime in Campsfield house and that in Rochester? What we really need is not prisons, but secure hostels to detain people who need detention. The Prison Service is very uncomfortable with that role and, if we are looking for additional places for people such as those being discussed, we would do better to build secure hostels than to keep them locked up in prison.

Miss Widdecombe: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks about preferring detention in special centres to detention in discrete parts of prison. That is why we have opened Campsfield house and Tinsley house and why the percentage of those detained in our prison system has declined. It is a shared objective. Meanwhile, if we believe that people should be detained and if that view is upheld by independent adjudicators, we believe that it is right that we must supply enough space. As we do not have enough space in our detention centres, we must use prisons.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: Does the Minister recognise that, despite her statement today, many people think it a scandal that so many people have been in prison for so long when no offence has been committed? Does she agree that no one should be allowed admission to this country when they stage a hunger strike, but that delays are unacceptable? In the case of those on hunger strike in Rochester, may we have assurances from the Minister that there will be no further delays, that they will be told when they will get an appeal and that that appeal will be soon? Does the Minister recognise that many hon. Members are somewhat dismayed that such a situation is still occurring, given the reassurances that the House was given in respect of delays during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993?

Miss Widdecombe: I am amazed at that series of questions. I can only conclude that two things must be true: first, that the hon. Lady had prepared her remarks before she came in; and, secondly, that she did not manage somehow to revise them in the light of what I have already said.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that two separate and responsible witnesses gave presentations last week to the all-party parliamentary group on refugees and that that caused no little concern to those of us who heard the evidence of those witnesses, one of whom concentrated on the psychological health of detainees? Although I have absolute confidence in her conduct when managing this situation, would she or the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is also sitting on the Treasury Bench, be prepared to meet hon. Members to discuss the underlying issues?

Miss Widdecombe: I am always available to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to Opposition Members to discuss these issues.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that, to independent observers of this exchange, the Government's response will seem bureaucratic, inhumane and harsh? People will remember the totally different and more generous approach taken when people escaped from Tsarist Russia and the pogroms and when people came in the 1930s from Germany. Many hon. Members are descended from those who were given admission. Particularly in view of the Prime Minister's recent boast in India that he was the friend of the ethnic communities, the Minister's answer will sound singularly unconvincing.

Miss Widdecombe: What I find unconvincing is the tendency of Opposition Members to deplore the present situation, without actually saying what the alternative is. Is the alternative seriously not to detain anybody? Is it seriously to release people because they choose distressing methods of attempting to press their case? Should we seriously simply say that anybody who comes to this country, no matter what the circumstances, can wander around free, even if there are very good reasons why we and other responsible persons believe that that should not be allowed? In the absence of any sensible alternative suggestion, I believe that our policy is correct.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that all hunger strikers practise moral blackmail on society? Does she agree that, however compelling certain cases might be—I do not accept that the cases we are debating are compelling—to give way undermines the structures that underpin our society and our approach to sensible living?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has summed up the issue very sensibly. However distressing or difficult the circumstances in which people are now putting themselves, we have food, fluids and all the necessary medical care available. All the help and advice in the world is available to those people. If they choose not to avail themselves of it, I deeply regret that, but in the last analysis, that is their decision.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister constantly wears a cross round her neck. Can she tell us how she equates her Christian conscience with allowing those people to die?

Miss Widdecombe: I have already quoted the circumstances in which some of the detainees find themselves in detention. I quoted one case in which a detainee had served a sentence in this country for indecent assault on children. As the hon. Lady challenges my Christianity, perhaps I may quote to her:
Whoso shall offend one of these
my
little ones … it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck".
The hon. Lady knows that very well.

Mrs. Clwyd: "Thou shalt not kill."

Miss Widdecombe: I do not want any of these detainees to die; that is why the medical attention is available. However, it must be their decision whether to take it up.

Mr. James Couchman: Although Rochester prison is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), a number of people are concerned, for humane reasons, about the circumstances in which people are detained in Rochester. Specifically, they are worried about the way in which the decision to detain is taken and the reviews that take place thereafter. They would like to know what those reviews are, how frequently they are carried out and by whom.

Miss Widdecombe: Reviews are carried out at regular intervals and, as I said, written decisions are taken, and written reasons then given, every month. When someone has been in detention for six months or more, the information is regularly brought before a director in the immigration service.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of the Minister's rude and uncalled-for response to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock)—

Mrs. Maddock: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: Should we not remember that we had better be a bit careful about biblical references? Did not the Bible say something about charity? Will the Minister consult some of her distinguished and senior colleagues and find out whether they have a conscience as to what the shade of their grandfathers has to say?

Miss Widdecombe: Does charity involve not detaining people whom we believe it is in the public interest to detain? If that is the definition of charity, it is the oddest definition that I have heard. As for my allegedly rude answer, I was challenged on a most personal basis of religious belief and I believe that I had every right to answer in like terms.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that every reasonable person, hearing what she has said today about the processes by which we deal with the detained 1 per cent. of asylum seekers, will consider that this action is sadly necessary, decent, humane and totally beyond reproach?

Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful. I believe that that sums up the situation completely.

Mr. Tony Banks: Could the Minister tell us a little more about the way in which the authorities treat hunger strikers? What counselling is available to them to try to get them off hunger strike? What access is made available to their family and friends, so that they may try to dissuade them from the action?
The Minister knows of a case about which I am in correspondence with her Department—that of Mr. Barry Home, who has been on hunger strike since 6 January. He is protesting about experiments on animals. She is good on animals, but not so good on people. I understand that he was moved, as a category A prisoner—he is on remand—from Bullingdon prison to Bristol prison in handcuffs. The man can hardly walk. Is it necessary to handcuff hunger strikers?

Madam Speaker: Order. We are getting on to the subject of a different prisoner in a different situation. Does the Minister want to respond to that? The question was quite outside the terms of the private notice question.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated dissent.

Madam Speaker: That is very sensible.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend comment on speculation in the press that two temporary prisons on land and a possible floating prison that might end up in my constituency in Portland might be used as detention centres for asylum seekers? Is such speculation correct, and is that the Government's intention?

Miss Widdecombe: We have no such plans. Our current plans are that both facilities, should they become available, will be used for category C prisoners.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I recognise the sensitivity of the issue. My hon. Friend said that medicine, food and liquids were available to the prisoners. There is a fine line between suicide, euthanasia and taking one's own life by depriving oneself of food. Has my hon. Friend given the matter thought? Is there any point at which the Government would step in to save a life?

Miss Widdecombe: There is no point at which we would force-feed or force on people medical treatment that they had indicated they did not want. We are keeping available medical attention that would immediately assist. We hope that medical intervention would obviate the possibility of a death occurring, but we cannot force that treatment on people. If they decide to refuse it, that must be a matter for them.

Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on a serious and difficult matter. Does she agree that, however difficult and awful it may be when people go on hunger strike, it should not deflect us from the point that detention is necessary in a minority of cases? Does she further agree that, in the light of the case histories outlined in the House this afternoon, many people might wonder why some of the asylum seekers are still in this country?

Miss Widdecombe: Those who are seeking asylum are in this country because we have to go through the proper procedures. They are entitled to appeal and, if they choose, to judicial review. Sometimes, even when all avenues have been exhausted and we wish to remove them, documentation and difficulties from the receiving country can make that difficult. For all those reasons, they are in this country. Those who are in the country in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend are precisely the ones who are cases for detention.
Earlier, there was a sedentary intervention—a justified one—from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) combined several references in his question, including my response to the hon. Member for Christchurch and my biblical quotation, which was in response to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). That was why I said that my quotation and my response to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley were fully justified. I also consider my response to the hon. Member for Christchurch to be fully justified: she had not listened to a word that I had said.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the private notice question the observation has been made that Britain is almost alone in using detention centres for asylum seekers? That is quite bogus. Many countries use detention centres, but others

use reception centres. On the surface, those appear to be voluntary, but it is difficult to avoid them because all welfare support is withdrawn unless the asylum seekers go to the reception centres. Is it not true that we are not alone in seeing that those who need to be detained are detained and dealt with, for the safety of our own citizens?

Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. We detain only about 1·5 per cent.—currently about 1 per cent.—of those who are seeking asylum. The rest, to whom we give temporary admission while we sort out their cases, are free to go anywhere they like in this country. In other countries, that is not so: those who are seeking asylum are held in reception centres and their movements are heavily limited. Our approach to those who are seeking asylum is a model of humanity.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: As a final conclusion, does the hon. Lady realise that, second only to the Home Secretary, she is the most nauseous personality in the place?

Madam Speaker: Order. Abusive exchanges about personalities across the Floor of the House must cease. We are concerned with Government policy and not with personalities.

Mr. Graham Riddick: In relation to the answer that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), would it not be more humane for medical staff to give fluids to hunger strikers—forcibly if necessary—in one or two highly exceptional cases, to ensure that they do not die or damage themselves permanently?

Miss Widdecombe: I honour the reasoning behind that question, and I understand that such a case could be made in the interests of preserving life. However, if people who are in full possession of their faculties decide that they do not want a particular course of medicine, regardless of whether they are in detention or free in society, it cannot be forced upon them.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would not any decent gentleman want to withdraw the very offensive personal remark that he made to my hon. Friend?

Madam Speaker: I have made my views very clear about personal remarks. Does the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) wish to make some comment?

Mr. Faulds: I need no prompting from such a gentleman. I have consulted one of my more Christian colleagues, and I was reprimanded by him that it was un-Christian comment. On that ground, as an old-fashioned Presbyterian—and in order to oblige you, Madam Speaker—of course I withdraw that observation.

Madam Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret having to detain you and the House on a matter relating to an unanswered parliamentary question. During the Christmas recess—well before 8 January—I tabled a written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the national debt, for answer on Monday 13 January when Parliament resumed. It was duly printed on the Order Paper as Question 595. On Tuesday 21 January, I telephoned the office of the Economic Secretary about the non-appearance of the answer and I was informed by an official:
The parliamentary question is currently with the Chief Secretary and should be answered within the next couple of days
It is now Wednesday 29 January—eight days later—and I have not received an answer. In fact, I never received a holding answer to the question. The new guidance on answering parliamentary questions entitled "Basic Dos and Don'ts", which was produced as a result of the Scott report, is clearly not being followed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—a man who has paid scant regard to accountability.
Madam Speaker, there is not much more that I can do and I do not know what you can do. However, I have waited two and a half weeks for an answer to a written parliamentary question tabled during the recess and have received no holding answer, even though the new instructions make it clear that Ministers must not circumvent Parliament, must not avoid answering questions and must give truthful answers—even if they are embarrassing. It is beyond belief that we must wait this long for an answer. Is there anything else that I can do, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for giving me a little notice of his problem. I share his view that it is totally unacceptable that the House and hon. Members should not receive even a holding answer more than two weeks after the event. That is stated not only in guidelines, but in Standing Order No. 18(4), which clearly provides that Ministers shall answer questions tabled for a named day—I believe that the hon. Gentleman gave a named day with his question—
on the date for which notice has been given.
I seek to ensure that the Standing Orders are observed. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench will report my remarks to the appropriate Department without delay.

Holocaust Denial

Mr. Mike Gapes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it a criminal offence to claim, whether in writing or orally, that the policy of genocide against the Jewish people committed by Nazi Germany did not occur.
Sixty-four years ago tomorrow, Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. In the following 12 years, Hitler's Nazi regime and his allies and supporters in the countries of Europe that it occupied set about a policy of exterminating the Jewish people, based upon Hitler's writings and ideological racial purity theories that he had outlined more than a decade previously.
After coming to power, Hitler moved quickly to implement his policies. Within a few months, a series of laws had been passed. The laws introduced between 1933 and 1938 led to confiscations and pogroms, and steps were taken to undermine the political, economic and civil rights of Jewish people in Germany. Those measures included action against many Christians of part Jewish origin. By the Nuremberg laws of 1935, Jews lost their citizenship, and they were forbidden to intermarry with other Germans.
During Kristallnacht between 9 and 10 November 1938—the night of broken glass—almost every synagogue in Germany was attacked and destroyed, as well as many other Jewish institutions and businesses. Thousands of Jewish people were imprisoned in concentration camps, their wealth was confiscated and huge punitive fines were imposed on them.
In 1939, by the time of the second world war, Jews were no longer allowed to be citizens, could not attend schools and were not able to practise their businesses or professions. They were not allowed to own land, to associate with a non-Jew, or to go to parks, libraries or museums, and were ordered to live in ghettos. By 1941, boys over 12 were conscripted into munition factories, all use of the telephone and public transportation systems was forbidden, and all Jews over the age of six were required to wear the yellow star of David badge.
Those facts are indisputable. The Nazis, as they occupied neighbouring countries, implemented their policies in those countries. Eventually, they decided to develop the policy of the so-called final solution, which meant the extermination of Jewish people throughout Europe. It has been estimated—it is difficult to give an exact figure—that up to 6 million people of Jewish origin or part Jewish origin were exterminated in that process.
More than 800,000 died in the ghettos: 600,000 in German-occupied eastern Europe; 100,000 in what used to be Czechoslovakia; and 100,000 in Romania and the Soviet Union. About 1,300,000 were killed by being shot in the open air. Up to 3 million people died in the camps—2,700,000 died in the death camps. A million people died at Auschwitz, three quarters of a million at Treblinka, more than half a million at Belzec, up to 200,000 at Sobibór, 150,000 at Kulmhof and 50,000 at Lublin. Others died in concentration camps elsewhere.
Following Hitler's defeat at the end of the war, when those facts, which were already partly known, came to general attention, there began a systematic campaign of disinformation, distortion and lying about the past by Nazi sympathisers and neo-Nazi groups.
Many countries have adopted laws against denial of the holocaust. Countries in Europe—including Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France and Lithuania—have such laws, but this country does not. Our current legislation is based on the Public Order Act 1986, under which incitement to racial hatred is an offence. People may refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Home Office and, ultimately, the Attorney-General for legislative consideration literature disseminated in schools which denies the holocaust, or says that Hitler did not know about it, that there were no gas chambers or concentration camps or that people died simply of starvation or as a result of allied bombing. Such a leaflet was distributed in Hemel Hempstead last year, and was referred to the Attorney-General; but we are told that, although material of that kind is offensive and untruthful, it is not insulting, and there are therefore no prosecutions on that basis involving holocaust denial material.
Survivors of the holocaust, relatives of those who died and many other people who believe in democracy and the defence of human rights throughout society find it unbelievable that such a loophole remains in our current legislation. It is time, by one means or another, either to enact a specific law to make it an offence to deny the holocaust, or to amend the existing law in the Public Order Act 1986 to make denial an offence.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made some welcome remarks this morning when he opened the Anne Frank exhibition in Southwark. He said that it was time for us to give serious consideration to such action. Moreover, since I gave notice of my intention to present my Bill, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Holocaust Educational Trust and many others have given their support. That suggests that my proposals have widespread backing. I hope that, before too long, we in this country will join others in Europe to work collectively against the neo-Nazis who operate internationally—who publish material in one country and disseminate it in another, and use loopholes in order to act without any concern for the effect of their actions on the public and the dangers that they pose for the future.
Some people may ask, "What about freedom of speech?" Our freedom of speech is already constrained by the legislation that I have mentioned, and in other ways.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech; it is a question of balance, and I believe that the balance must be adjusted so that we can deal with the problems more effectively. Some people will also say that the Bill is not necessary because we shall create martyrs, but what is the point of legislating against incitement to racial hatred unless we are prepared to enforce it rigorously against those who incite such hatred by peddling material of this kind?
Some people will say that we do not need a new law. I hope that hon. Members will demonstrate that we do.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike Gapes, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. David Hunt, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Greville Janner, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Michael Fabricant and Mr. Paul Flynn.

HOLOCAUST DENIAL

Mr. Mike Gapes accordingly presented a Bill to make it a criminal offence to claim, whether in writing or orally, that the policy of genocide against the Jewish people committed by Nazi Germany did not occur: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 89].

Media Comment (Madam Speaker's Statement)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In your considered statement yesterday at column 153–54, you expressed the hope that the investigation would be completed
at the earliest possible moment."—[Official Report, 28 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 153.]
Is there any indication as to whether we are talking about weeks or months in relation to the earliest possible moment?

Madam Speaker: There is nothing further that I can help the House with following my clear statement yesterday.

Orders of the Day — Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 4

RESTRICTION OF LIBERTY ORDERS

Amendment proposed [20 January]: No. 245, in page 6, line 20, to leave out the words
'of 16 years of age or more'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are discussing Government amendments Nos. 246 to 250, 252 and 253.

Mrs. Irene Adams: You may recall, Madam Speaker, that I was interrupted in my speech last week when the Government hung on for yet another night and refused to move the 10 o'clock motion because, once more, they were frightened of losing a vote in the House. I was on my feet in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and of the amendments that he had moved. Our contention was that electronic tagging should be part of the supervision and probation process, and that it should be used only as an alternative to imprisonment.
The Government are still not giving us the guidelines that we think are needed. They are not giving the judiciary the guidelines that they would need. We do not know, for example, what offenders, or offences for that matter, would be targeted and subject to the orders.
In Committee, the Minister guaranteed that this would be a pilot scheme, but the only research that is of any use is from America. It is widely available and shows that the
equipment alone will not ensure a successful programme".
Electronic tagging will work only if other measures are in place. The research says:
The involvement of professional social workers is key.
My main concern involves the electronic tagging of people under 16. The American research tells that such tagging worked best with people who already had some internal control and who needed just an extra nudge. I ask again: what offences and offenders does the Minister have in mind, because the under-16s who would be subject to the measure would not need just an extra nudge and would often be from dysfunctional families? They would come not from middle-class homes, with parents who watch their every move and who keep them on track day in, day out, but from homes where family life had often broken down.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Where does the hon. Lady gel that interpretation from? It seems that a young offender from any background could be submitted to this recourse.

Mrs. Adams: If the Minister would give us the guidance on what offenders and offences he was talking about, we might know what offences to address, but, at

the moment, we do not, so I must assume that this applies across the board. I have no guidance from the Minister or the Government, and neither do the judiciary. The Government are asking the House to pass the orders on to sheriffs and to judges, who will have to implement them as best they can because we are not getting the guidance that is required.
My experience is that not many children from my street are subject to any court orders. However, I fear that many children in the poorer parts of my constituency would fall into that category. There is nothing to suggest that children with a life style similar to mine would suffer. Many children are in peripheral housing schemes where there are no facilities and bad housing and where schools are not properly equipped by the Government. Their lives are not good and they do not see a bright future. They have nothing to look forward to, and they are the children who would be affected. The last thing that such children need is the pressure on their families that electronic tagging would bring.
In many cases the mother in a house in which the family had broken down would also be the gaoler, and that is a difficult role to give anyone without the backing of social work departments and probation officers. As far as I can see, no such backing is on offer.
In Committee, the Minister said that one of the relevant crimes was football hooliganism. There is no great evidence of football hooliganism in Scotland, because we addressed that a long time ago. I am at a loss to know what sort of crimes he has in mind. Would truancy by those under the age of 16 be relevant? A child playing truant from school could be electronically tagged at home for 12 hours. The removal of the tag would not be an inducement for the child to go to school if the only time that the child was free was during school hours. Tags may also be used on fine defaulters who are over the age of 16.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best inducements to under-16-year-olds not to play truant would be to offer them the prospect of a real job when they leave school? Perhaps the Government want to experiment with electronic tagging. In view of the closeness of some of the votes in the next few weeks, Tory Whips might try it on Conservative Members.

Mrs. Adams: I am unhappy with that suggestion, because our Whips might try it on us. However, my hon. Friend's first point was excellent. Tagging will not encourage children to look for a better way of life. The only way to do that is to give them hope. Some 20 per cent. of families in Britain do not have an income from a job coming into the household, and that does not encourage a better life. The proposal will not help them.
I am concerned about the way that the matter has been handled, and especially about its effect on those who are under the age of 16. However, people over that age are also affected. Was fine default one of the crimes that the Minister has in mind? In Committee, the Minister failed to answer questions. What would the tag entail? When it is switched off will it still activate other electronic equipment such as that at supermarket doors? We often set equipment off in airports with pagers and mobile telephones. I understand that people will wear the tags even when they are deactivated. [Interruption.]
Would the Minister like to intervene? Will the tags activate equipment in supermarkets and other stores? Are we putting the mark of Cain on people? Are we saying, "Here is an offender"? Will people who did not buy a television licence be stopped at supermarket doors? Will we point a finger at them in public? None of those questions has been answered.
We are discussing the introduction of an order requiring a piece of equipment, but we do not know to whom the order will apply or what crimes they will have had to commit. We do not know the effect that the order will have on their overall life style or on their families. We are also not guaranteeing the involvement of the professionals who will be necessary to implement an order, such as social workers and probation officers.
We seem to be throwing in a measure that has not been well researched, and not researched at all in Scotland. There have been a few pilot schemes in England, but they have not yet been concluded. The only research we have comes from America, and that has proved that the measure is utterly useless. It has not served its intended purpose, and, as the Minister told us in Committee, its application could cost up to £10,000 per person. Paying that amount would not be very clever if the order was made because of non-payment of the television licence fee or because wee Johnny was kicking a football in the street after his mother could not get him in after 8 o'clock at night.
4.30 pm
Before we accept the measure, the Minister will have to tell us much more about it: the type of crimes to which it will apply, the type of people whom he thinks will be wearing the tags and how we will deal with the equipment problems I have mentioned. He must also tell us the cost of putting the system into every home, as it will have to include a telephone and modem. Presumably the Government will have to install the system and pick up the bills for running it. I should tell the Minister that I have some people in my constituency who could break out of Alcatraz. I do not think that an electronic tag will induce them to stay at home. The Minister has a lot more work to do on the measure, and he will have to answer some of our questions before it progresses any further.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) has made a most compelling case against the proposals. She was particularly right to say that the Bill provides absolutely no guidance to the judiciary generally and to sheriffs particularly on the criteria that should be employed when electronic tagging is applied to those over 16 or to those under 16. One could argue very strongly that the Government's decision to extend the proposal, by tabling Amendment No. 245, places a far more acute obligation on them to prescribe the criteria by which this form of penal disposal should be used.
If one introduces a measure that is essentially a gimmick, surely one has an intellectual if not a political obligation to justify its introduction. If one intends to apply the measure to under-16s—who are, by convention and statute, dealt with differently in virtually every aspect of our civil and criminal law—the obligation is all the more pressing. Thus far, the Government have not discharged that obligation.
As hon. Members have already said, the measure is untargeted and may very possibly have the effect of contradicting the Government's apparent attempt to create more consistency in sentencing. If one introduces a policy that contradicts other policies, surely one has a duty to explain why the contradiction should be allowed.
As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said when we last met to discuss the measure, the Government have given absolutely no indication of the resources that will be available to implement it. We are told that public expenditure is under severe and critical review, but this measure will undoubtedly increase the burden upon the taxpayer. We can rest assured that calculations have been done in the Scottish Office, but the House has not been admitted to the privity of that information. No doubt the Government do not want to tell us just how expensive this kind of operation can be.
If the Government have had the opportunity to read the Home Office research study No. 163, which deals with the trials in Greater Manchester, Norfolk and Berkshire in 1995–96, they will know that the average cost per offender in the trial was £18,000. That is approximately 30 times the cost of supervising an offender and greater than the cost of keeping a person in prison for six months. That is my estimate of the costs. Does the Minister have a better estimate for the House?
I now turn to the tagging of children under 16. We know that, in the Scottish system, children under 16 rarely reach the courts because of the children's panel system, which is the envy of many other jurisdictions. What estimate have Ministers made of the precise number of individuals under 16 years of age for whom tagging would be relevant? We look forward to hearing about that from the Minister. In this context, generalisations will not suffice.
What is the position with regard to the pilot study? Is it still under way? The date of 4 January has been mentioned as the date of the conclusion of the pilot study. If that is so, where is the evaluation? Are we to be expected to deal with the matter without the analysis and evaluation of a pilot study being available to the House? I know that the Government are urgent in their desire to put this legislation on the statute book, but is it seriously being suggested that it is sensible to legislate when information directly relevant to the issue we are discussing, which has been gathered as a result of an experiment, is not to be shared with the House? To coin a phrase, that is Mickey Mouse legislating, which does nothing for the credit of the Government.
These matters, and in particular the effort to pass legislation to impose tagging on those under 16, have not gone without comment, particularly from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Letters were reported extensively in The Herald of 9 January 1997. We hear that the Secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland—no bleeding heart liberal he, and he will no doubt regard that as a compliment—wrote:
The prospect of tagging children under the age of 16 tends to lead away from this general philosophy".
He is referring to the current approach to those who have offended under the age of 16. He continues:
An electronic tagging device could be a backward step as such tagging would be viewed as a form of additional punishment and stand as a marker on the child, the likely consequence of which would be to expose the child to ridicule. The more hardened offenders would probably regard the tag as a trophy.


Did the Minister gel that letter and did he read it? What interpretation did he put on its terms?

Mr. John McFall: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the consultation exercise drew 102 responses, four of which were from police forces? One hundred and one out of the 102 responses were against. There was one response for, and I will keep the House in suspense as to who that one was from.

Mr. Campbell: I suppose that one might say that if 101 responses were against, that was probably 101 damnations.
Mr. Cameron continues:
If a child merits lagging then, generally speaking, he or she is unlikely to view it as an incentive to better behaviour. Indeed, it is more likely to be regarded by some 'harder' children as an achievement … The ultimate responsibility for the management and administration of electronic monitoring would or should fall squarely on the shoulders of the local authority and not the police where children are concerned.
There is a demonstration of an eager, anxious and determined body of opinion in Scotland which is desperately awaiting the passing into law of these provisions so that it can be part of it. The association is saying, "Don't let the police have responsibility for this. Pass the responsibility to the local authority." Did the Minister get the letter? Did he read the letter? What weight does he attach to the letter and what weight does he attach to the views of those who are most directly concerned with crime and punishment? Alternatively, has he on this occasion simply swept away the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland because they do not coincide with the prejudices and gimmick-ridden approach to penal affairs which now, unhappily, characterise the Scottish Office?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman considered the safety aspect? Tagging equipment might, in some workplaces, be regarded by management and employees as a safety hazard.

Mr. Campbell: That may well be so for those over 16, although we do not normally expect those under 16 to be in factories, where such issues might arise. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's general point that someone carrying such a tag might be at risk when performing some activities because of the presence of the tag.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the proposals partly because the local authorities, rather than the police, would supervise the young people. Would he like to comment on the fact that the local authority has overall responsibility for those sentenced to community service, which is the present equivalent of probationary service?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman states the present position, but I am not sure of the point that he is trying to make. My point was that the police are clear that they do not want anything to do with the administration of these proposals. Coupled with the other aspects of the letter to which I have referred, that is a clear thumbs down from the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland).

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman like to comment on the fact that

it is not long since the House debated the Children (Scotland) Bill, when not only did none of the agencies suggest tagging under-16s, but the suggestion did, not come from any Minister either?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Lady has a particular interest in children's issues and makes effective and worthwhile contributions to many of our debates on such subjects. Her intervention underlines the fact that what we are discussing today is a gimmick to be introduced into the penal system not because we know it to be worth while—we have not had the evaluation of the pilot study—or because it has been proved universally effective elsewhere, but because the Government believe that it might attract a headline here or there.
Hon. Members have already referred to pilot studies that have been carried out abroad. Experience abroad suggests that tagging works only if there is close supervision and lasts for a short period. Where in the Bill are those criteria set out? Nowhere. Experience abroad suggests that offenders must have a stable life style. Where in the Bill do we find an obligation on a judge to take account of the family circumstances of a person on whom a tag is to be placed? Nowhere. The report into the United Kingdom study, to which I have already referred, concluded:
friction between members of the family when one was undergoing electronic monitoring may be a potentially serious consequence of the system.
All the evidence is against the proposals. We have heard nothing approaching a reasoned, rational, intellectual justification for them. One is driven to the conclusion that the issue is not the proper treatment of children, but the capture of what is thought to be the law and order agenda, as evidenced by a tabloid headline here and there. In the run-up to a general election we expect that sort of thing, but it is wrong of the Government to propose measures that are so clearly unjustified either by principle or by experience elsewhere. If the Government had any proper regard for the penal system in Scotland, they would withdraw the proposals immediately.

Mr. Gallie: I shall be fairly brief. The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) who stated, "We got over the problems of alcohol abuse and hooliganism at football matches." The Government certainly did that by introducing legislation during the 1980s. I was not in the House at the time, but I suspect that Opposition Members opposed those changes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That surprises me. It must have been the one and only law and order measure that they did not oppose.

Mrs. Adams: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. In fact our late colleague, the former Member for Glasgow, Gorbals, introduced the legislation.

Mr. Gallie: I certainly welcome that legislation. I am quite sure that the Government pushed it along and that it was a case of Scotland first and others following. It was good legislation.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) appeared to suggest that we should impose on sheriffs strict guidelines on sentencing. I agree with him to some extent, but I find it difficult to


understand why he finds it appropriate to set out detailed instructions for sheriffs before they can impose the use of monitoring devices.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Perhaps the fault is mine. I suspect that it is a problem of expression rather than comprehension. When we introduce such a radically different measure, and invest sheriffs with a discretion in that respect, we have a duty to lay down the criteria that they are entitled, but not bound, to take into account.

Mr. Gallie: I am quite sure that the Bill does that. From my understanding of it, and perhaps beyond the comprehension of the hon. and learned Gentleman who made such an insulting comment, the Bill contains an element of choice in that individuals will be able to choose whether or not to wear a monitoring device. As far as I am aware, it is an alternative to custody.
Opposition Members have referred to children who will be affected by the measure. Let us get down to the hard facts. In some of the areas to which the hon. Member for Paisley, North referred, children of 14 and 15 are making life an absolute misery for their peers and for society in general. The measure is aimed at children who may have 15, 16, 20 or 30 offences lined up against them. They appear before a children's panel, they are told off and then they are back on the streets. Perhaps the children's panel will be able to utilise the legislation through the courts. I recognise that children's panels can pass on their cases to the courts to be judged by sheriffs.

Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman specifically states that the measure will be useful for children's hearings, but amendment No. 245 excludes children's hearings. That completely destroys his case.

Mr. Gallie: It does not, because children's panels have the power to pass on cases involving young offenders to the courts. The provision could well be in their minds when they do so. It is a decision for the panels, but they are not dealing with the problems on our streets as effectively as I would like.
The measure imposes an additional facility to be utilised to control hard-line offenders for the benefit of Scottish society, and I am certainly prepared to give it a chance. If it is good it will be used by the courts, and if it is not it will be abandoned.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Linlithgow and any other hon. Member who spoke on the amendment on Monday that they may not speak twice to the same amendment.

Mr. John McAllion: The issue in this debate is whether electronic tagging should be extended to people under 16 years of age. The speech of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) showed that he does not understand the debate or the nature of the youngsters who are likely to come into contact with the new powers that will be given to the courts. My hon. Friend the Member

for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) was right when she said that the power would be almost exclusively applied to youngsters who come from deprived areas.
The hon. Gentleman challenged my hon. Friend and asked what evidence she had for that assertion. I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I spent a day sitting in the sheriff court watching case after case—including offences of theft, assault, burglary and housebreaking—and, invariably, the offenders came from similar socio-economic backgrounds and from the same parts of the city of Dundee. They had faced the same economic deprivation. If Tory Members of Parliament spent more time thinking about the causes of crime, instead of ways to chase the criminals, we might live in a safer society.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has visited his local constabulary headquarters, as I have, and asked to see the old birching book in which are recorded the names of those who had been birched. The same names appeared again and again. Those people came from a deprived background and could not break out of criminal behaviour. They were frequently flogged, but there was no improvement in their behaviour.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The hon. Member for Ayr has said in the past that he would like a return to birching or flogging of offenders. Those in favour of birching argue that, once people have been birched, they will not come back for more, but the evidence shows that people were birched more than once. It is not the punishment that deters people from offending, but the circumstances that they live in. Their situations and the people they mix with encourage criminal behaviour. Offenders also tend to believe that they will not get caught, so they do not worry much about the punishment. It is time that Conservative Ministers and Back Benchers began to wake up to that fact.
The issue is why the courts should be given the power to extend electronic tagging to under-16s. The consultation exercise that the Government carried out at the end of last year has been mentioned. Indeed, in our debate on Monday, the Minister accepted that those who were consulted were "overwhelmingly opposed" to giving the new power to children's panels. When he was questioned directly by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), he accepted that the police were opposed to an extension of the power.
If the children's panels will deal with the majority of young offenders, and if everyone who has been consulted—including the police—opposes giving the children's panels powers to impose electronic tagging orders, why are the Government persisting? The Minister tried to base an argument on the number of young offenders who go before the courts rather than the children's panels. He said:
In 1994, only 171 young offenders had a charge proved against them in court."—[Official Report, 20 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 715.]
He also accepted that those 171 young offenders were guilty of the more serious offences. We must question whether electronic tagging would be appropriate for such young offenders.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has conducted much research into the Government's pilot schemes, and other electronic tagging schemes throughout


the world, and come to the conclusion that electronic tagging is suitable only for a certain type of offender. It said that the monitoring period—the period during which offenders are tagged—should be short. If the Minister is saying that electronic tagging will be used for youngsters who have committed serious offences, why would a short period of electronic tagging be appropriate? I suggest that it is not in any sense appropriate.
COSLA said that electronic tagging should be targeted on offenders who have a stable home base. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North said, youngsters who commit such serious offences do not come from stable homes. It is therefore not appropriate for them to be electronically tagged. Indeed, one of the ways in which to deal with such youngsters is to remove them from their home base, since it can often be the reason for their offending in the first place. Why should they be electronically tagged and confined to a place that is unsuitable for them?
COSLA said that another criterion of the scheme is that it should be targeted on offenders with secure employment and economic independence. I wonder how many of the 171 youngsters who ended up in court in 1994 had secure employment or economic independence. I suggest that the answer is nil. Why on earth the Minister is going ahead with the proposal is beyond me.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that page 24 of "Curfew Orders with Electronic Monitoring" says:
The majority said they would agree to be lagged again … Avoiding custody was an important consideration, as was not jeopardising one's employment, or the chance of it"?

Mr. McAllion: We are talking about young offenders who are guilty of serious offences. It turned out that, of the 171 young offenders who were before the courts in 1994, only 25 were given any kind of detention. Only a fraction of those 25 would qualify for an electronic tagging order. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that youngsters who commit serious crimes—the kind of youngsters who the hon. Member for Ayr says terrorise communities—should be put back into the very same communities and electronically tagged rather than disposed of in detention centres? I do not think that that makes any sense.
The idea of electronic tagging is crazy. No one in the House, including hon. Members behind the Minister supports it. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife. North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, it is an election gimmick in an effort to grab the law and order agenda. It will not work, and in a few months' time the Minister will not be in his post. Thank God for that.

Mr. McFall: Many fine points in the debate have shown the hollowness of the Government's proposal for electronic tagging for under-16s.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned the pilot projects and the results of them. There have been no pilot projects in Scotland, either on adults or on under-16s. The financial memorandum to the Bill states that the pilot projects would be cost free, yet in England they cost £1.5 million. The fact that no resources are forthcoming from the Government blows a hole in the idea.
I should like to take the Minister through the history of the matter, because it is important to put it on the record. On 17 June, a White Paper was published, the responses to which had to be in by 31 July. There was no mention of electronic tagging for 16-year-olds. The Bill was published in October, immediately after the Queen's Speech, and there was no mention of electronic tagging in it. The Bill went into Committee in November, yet there was no mention of electronic tagging until near the end of that month, when the Government announced a consultation exercise and asked individuals to submit responses by 4 January—notwithstanding the Christmas and new year holidays.
In the debate last week, the genesis of the idea was mentioned. I have some information to share with the House. I received a "Dear John" letter, dated 21 January, from the chairman of Securicor plc, Sir Neil MacFarlane, the former Minister with special responsibility for sport, drawing to my attention the good work that the company does on the issue of electronic tagging. Mindful that the Government are conducting a consultation exercise in Scotland, and ready to undertake work on their behalf, he says:
In Scotland, the Government is now consulting on whether electronic monitoring should be made available to children's hearings in considering compulsory measures of supervision for children under 16 referred to them on offence grounds.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the hon. Gentleman got that letter, did it occur to him to speculate on how Sir Neil MacFarlane had such information, especially relating to children's hearings, which had not up to that point been in the public domain?

5 pm

Mr. McFall: That is a matter for the Minister. I was being charitable; we need an equal mix of charity and forensic ability. I am providing the charity and the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown the forensic ability. Let us hope that the Minister provides the eloquence; I fear that the third leg may disappoint us.
Sir Neil said that his project officers had undertaken a close study and that he was sharing the results of his research with me. He quoted one extremely profound statement:
It is established beyond any possible peradventure throughout the world that tagging is of value in the field of criminal justice. Wherever those operating the criminal justice system want it to succeed, it succeeds.
Was that statement from a senior judge in Scotland or from the most senior judge in England and Wales? No. It was from Mr. Tom Stacey of the Offenders Tag Association. It is nonsense and rubbish, and there are nothing but commercial interests at stake.
There were 102 responses to the consultation exercise over the six-week period, of which 101 were against, including four from police authorities. I want to share my secret with the House, and tell right hon. and hon. Members that the one person who was unequivocally in favour was the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
The hon. Gentleman does himself and his party no justice. The core question was question 3:
Would electronic tagging be appropriate to supervision requirements for young people under 16?


I have the 102 responses, no thanks to the Government. I had to seek them through the Library; it took us nine days to get them from the Scottish Office. The responses to the question run to six or seven pages, and give detailed observations on why it is not appropriate. I want to share with the House the answer given by the hon. Member for Ayr to that most profound question. His answer, in full, was: "Yes." He added a note at the end, saying:
I trust my comments, which do require expansion, are helpful.
Let the hon. Gentleman expand on why he is the odd person out in Scotland.

Mr. Gallie: Has the hon. Gentleman lost his sense of hearing? I gave a response here tonight.

Mr. McFall: Is that so? Was that the whole story? Perhaps I blinked and missed it. If that is the whole story, the House and me country will say that electronic tagging, as advocated by the hon. Gentleman, is unacceptable. He goes on about how we should support the police; he will no doubt say that Scotland is voting against tagging for under-16s whereas England and Wales voted for it. The reason, as he well knows, is that we have a unique justice system in Scotland, with children's hearings, and it is the envy of the world, including England and Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has been up to Scotland to observe the children's hearings system, in which we all take pride, whether we come from the local authority, the police, or the system itself. The system does not apportion blame to under-16-year-olds but tries to find out what the issues and the problems are, so that supervision and assistance can be offered to young people who find themselves in difficulties. Most of all, it offers support to parents and others in the community.

Mr. Gallie: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his research. How many Scottish Labour Members took the time and trouble even to write a three-letter word on the consultation document?

Mr. McFall: In Committee, we had a constructive debate, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, and there was no hint—nothing on the horizon—about tagging for under-16s. We saw through the exercise at the end of November: it was patent nonsense then, and it remains patent nonsense today. We have the support of 101 individuals and organisations, and the hon. Gentleman is isolated on the issue.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McFall: No, I am going to educate the hon. Gentleman, even if he does not want me to; he will have to sit there and listen. He said that the police had to be supported. Fife constabulary said:
The most likely reaction from many children would be to regard the need for tagging in their particular case as a 'badge of honour'. There is a danger that they would be viewed by their peers as role models.
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said:
The whole ethos of the current system is the fact that it is care based and by its very nature strives to place the child's needs as the first priority. The prospect of tagging children under the age of

16 tends to lead away from this central philosophy. Electronic tagging would simply add another level to the current care arrangements which would probably be of minimal effect and, under the present philosophy, inappropriate. Although tagging could be advantageous as an option for the courts when dealing with adult offenders, its use on children would be generally inappropriate and could serve to be counter-productive.
The Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said:
The overwhelming view was very much against the concept. … for younger children. Tagging would hugely divert attention from the positive purposes of supervision. Far from being the solution to the problem, supervision becomes the problem itself.
The Scottish Police Federation said:
At this time, we do not believe that electronic tagging would be appropriate to supervision requirements for young people under 16. We do not believe that electronic tagging would be a positive incentive to a child to demonstrate greater responsibility and self-control.
Dumfries and Galloway, and other non-Labour councils, gave responses. Dumfries and Galloway said:
To punish children or to even restrict offending without considering the reasons which bring about this behaviour is a backward step and is not a long term solution for the child or the community … we do believe this is a suggestion which must have come from someone with little understanding of the Hearing System in Scotland.
Hear, hear to that.
If the Minister takes his figures seriously, he will know that there are very few children for whom it would be appropriate. He must address the central question: for which children aged under 16, and in what circumstances, would tagging be appropriate? Are we to have the perverse situation in which the children available for tagging—the 25 who went to court in 1994—are sent, with electronic tags, back to their communities, which, as the hon. Member for Ayr said, they terrorise? Do we want that solution?
Is the measure in the interests of justice? I fear not, because the responses to the consultation have shown that it is not. Is it in commercial interests? If it is, the Minister and the Government have to be condemned. Following the letter from Securicor, the Opposition are fuelled with the belief that there is a commercial consideration. The Minister and the Government will not be forgiven if they go ahead on that basis.
For goodness sake, let the Minister think. Did he read the 101 responses? If he did, what is his view on them? Why are the Government out of step with social work departments, the children's hearing system and the police? Why are the Government alone on this? Why is the Secretary of State repudiating everything that his predecessors have done? Why does he say one minute that he will consult and in the second minute burn the responses? What use is that to the juvenile system in Scotland? If the Government have any care or concern for law and order in Scotland, they will surely consider again. If they do not reflect, their policy should be damned along with the rest of their policies.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) asked what view we took of the consultation exercise. It is not just who, or how many people, said what that matters, but the merits and strength of the arguments. On the merits of the argument, we took the view that the case against introducing tagging into the


children's hearing system was compelling. In respect of the criminal justice system, we took the view that the main arguments against tagging, pertinent though they were, could be met by appropriate legislation.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am answering the points made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton.
On the basis of the arguments, we considered that the balance lay in favour of making tagging available.
The hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) asked why there was no provision in the Bill to require the court to take into account the family circumstances, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised earlier. There is such a provision Government amendment No. 247 introduces a new subsection in proposed new section 245A to require the court to obtain and consider information about a child offender's family circumstances before making an order.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) referred to research and a Home Office report, which was published in December and is in the Vote Office. It was generally positive on the pilot schemes. It concluded:
Electronic monitoring can be a worthwhile addition to the range of community penalties available to sentences.
I make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is scope for regulations to target the use of disposal in the future. Government amendment No. 249 enables regulations to confine the application of the disposal to types of offender, so if the experience of the pilot scheme—or experience thereafter—suggests that the disposal is appropriate to some offenders but not others, regulations can be made under the Bill to amend its use.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister mentioned the pilot scheme. Does he understand why so many Opposition Members find it extraordinary that, having established the pilot scheme, the Government propose to introduce legislation without waiting until they have had the opportunity to evaluate the results? It is like delivering the verdict before the jury has heard the evidence.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. We are not suggesting the general adoption of these measures throughout Scotland. We believe that it is right to review the effects of the pilot scheme, to have pilot schemes in Scotland first, to make a proper evaluation and then to consider whether it should be taken forward more generally.
The hon. Member for Paisley, North referred to costs. The average cost of the pilot schemes in the first 12 months was £22,140, but that does not accurately predict the cost of an on-going national scheme because it reflects start-up costs, short time scale and the low number of orders initially made. The cost of an average length curlew order with electronic monitoring seems close to that of an average probation order. The monthly cost of tagging is well below half the cost of custody. The proposal is to run two to three pilot schemes in Scotland in the next two to three years. The estimated cost of those schemes is £1·5 million. I have no doubt that they will prove as cost-effective south of the border.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Paisley, North raised the evidence given by the police. We received responses from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Police Federation. They expressed reservations. A great concern was that tagging would be inappropriate or ineffective for young offenders. We recognise that there will be many cases in which tagging is inappropriate. That is why our proposals simply enable courts to use tagging in cases in which they consider it more appropriate than a disposal involving custody. Courts would not require tagging in inappropriate circumstances.
Both the chief police officers and the Police Federation suggested that the measure could be given further consideration following the pilot schemes. We recognised the merits of that argument, but also that, because the tagging of young offenders raised distinct issues, pilot schemes involving only adults were unlikely to test conclusively whether tagging could work with particular young offenders. Fife constabulary referred to the need for a
proper evaluation of its likely efficacy".
We agree. We believe that ultimately such an evaluation can be made only by piloting the tagging of young offenders.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North and by me about safety. My hon. Friend referred to safety in supermarkets. I should like to ask about safety in swimming pools. I presume that the equipment is transistorised. It might easily be taken into a swimming pool. If someone drops a transistor into their bath, they are electrocuted. There are practical considerations.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Of course the safety of the individual who has been tagged is a priority. No disposal which risked the safety of the individual would be acceptable. As for the electronic devices, we have moved on a great deal. The results of the pilot scheme showed conclusively that it worked in terms both of accuracy and of reliability. Incidentally, the devices work under water, so there is no concern about that.
We are against the stigmatising of offenders. We equally reject the notion that it will be a badge of honour. We do not believe that it should operate in that way. Tagging may be of value if a court wishes to protect victims and the public from the offender, but wants also to avoid a custodial sentence. It may also have a role to play in helping offenders to break patterns of offending, and act as a deterrent against further offending by restricting the liberty of the offender.
Of course, the person would have to give consent to being tagged. That is an important consideration.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) asked about age. Nothing in our amendments would prevent tagging from being piloted initially only with adults. Government amendment No. 249 would enable regulations to prescribe the class of offender in respect of whom restriction of liberty orders might be made. So it would be possible for such regulations initially to limit the availability of the orders to offenders above a certain


age, and extend it later if that seemed appropriate. I shall reflect on the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others before I make such regulations. His views may persuade us that the pilot schemes should be limited initially to adults. Even if I am not persuaded to introduce such a limitation, the Opposition will have the opportunity to oppose the regulations.
In a debate on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said:
there may be merit in extending the experiment further, so that young offenders who may commit more serious offences as time goes on can be kept away from custodial sentences.
He went on to recognise
the possibility that some young people will be diverted out of custody but properly supervised via electronic tagging".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 November 1996; c. 221.]
The Opposition are taking a different position today from that which he took then.
As I said earlier, we want there to be pilot schemes so that we can make an assessment. We believe that they have a place. What is especially compelling is that the young people who have been involved in pilot schemes south of the border testified to the effect that they would have preferred that option to being sent into custody. That is a consideration that hon. Members should bear in mind when drawing their conclusion tonight.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 291.

Division No. 58]
[5.19 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Aitken, Jonathan
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nicholas


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Burns, Simon


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Atkins, Robert
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Churchill, Mr


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clappison, James


Bates, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Coe, Sebastian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, John
Congdon, David


Body, Sir Richard
Conway, Derek


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Curry, David


Bowis, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bright, Sir Graham
Devlin, Tim


Brooke, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James





Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
King, Tom


Duncan Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Kynoch, George


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lamont Norman


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lang, Ian


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Loyden, Eddie


Fowler, Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, Sir David


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mellor, David


Gummer, John
Merchant, Piers


Hague, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Newton, Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Heath, Sir Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Michael
Paice, James


Higgins, Sir Terence
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Patten, John


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Porter, David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Powel, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Hurd, Douglas
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'dn S)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion






Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Rowe, Andrew
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Ryder, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Sackville, Tom
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Trend, Michael


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Trimble, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trotter, Neville


Shersby, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Waldegrave, William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Walden, George


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Soames, Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Speed, Sir Keith
Ward, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John



Wells, Bowen


Spink, Dr Robert
Wheeler, Sir John


Spring, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Sproat, Iain
Whittingdale, John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Stanley, Sir John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Streeter, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Sweeney, Walter
Yeo, Tim


Sykes, John
Young, Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John D (Strangf'd)
Mr. Anthony Coombs and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashdown, Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ashton, Joseph
Canavan, Dennis


Austin-Walker, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Church, Ms Judith


Battle, John
Clapham, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beggs, Roy
Clelland, David


Beith, A J
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Connarty, Michael


Benton, Joe
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Ms Jean


Blair, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Cox, Tom


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)





Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dixon, Don
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dobson, Frank
Kaufman, Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Khabra, Piara S


Eastham, Ken
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Etherington, Bill
Lewis, Terry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Litherland, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Faulds, Andrew
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fisher, Mark
Loyden, Eddie


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McAllion, John


Foster, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Don (Bath)
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Fraser, John
Macdonald, Calum


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
McFall, John


Galbraith, Sam
McGrady, Eddie


Galloway, George
McKelvey, William


Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


Garrett, John
McLeish, Henry


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert


Gilbert, Dr John
McMaster, Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNamara, Kevin


Godsiff, Roger
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Madden, Max


Graham, Thomas
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mandelson, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marek, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gunnell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Mike
Maxton, John


Hanson, David
Meacher, Michael


Hardy, Peter
Meale, Alan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Michael, Alun


Harvey, Nick
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hattersley, Roy
Milburn, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Miller, Andrew


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Home Robertson, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hood, Jimmy
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Paul


Howells, Dr Kim
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Hoyle, Doug
Oakes, Gordon


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
O'Hara, Edward


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
O'Neill, Martin


Hutton, John
Orme, Stanley


Illsley, Eric
Parry, Robert


Ingram, Adam
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Pendry, Tom






Pickthall, Colin
Steel, Sir David


Pike, Peter L
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Dr Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Randall, Stuart
Thurnham, Peter


Raynsford, Nick
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Dr John
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Touhig, Don


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Trickett, Jon


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Turner, Dennis


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tyler, Paul



Vaz, Keith


Rogers, Allan
Walker, Sir Harold


Rooker, Jeff
Wallace, James


Rooney, Terry
Walley, Ms Joan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Wareing, Robert N


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Watson, Mike


Salmond, Alex
Welsh, Andrew


Sedgemore, Brian
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheerman, Barry
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Shore, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wray, Jimmy


Snape, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Spellar, John
Mr. John Cummings and


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 136, in page 6, line 23, after 'an', insert
'additional requirement of a probation'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 296.

Division No. 59]
[5.34 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blair, Tony


Adams, Mrs Irene
Boateng, Paul


Ainger, Nick
Boyes, Roland


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Keith


Allen, Graham
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Alton, David
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Burden, Richard


Ashdown, Paddy
Byers, Stephen


Austin-Walker, John
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Battle, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell-Savours, D N


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A J
Cann, Jamie


Bell, Stuart
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)


Benn, Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bennett, Andrew F
Church, Ms Judith


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)





Clelland, David
Home Robertson, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hutton, John


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Ms R (Perth Kinross)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davidson, Ian
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dixon, Don
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dobson, Frank
Kaufman, Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Ennis, Jeff
Lewis, Terry


Etherington, Bill
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Litherland, Robert


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Livingstone, Ken


Fatchett, Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Faulds, Andrew
Llwyd, Elfyn


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Loyden, Eddie


Fisher, Mark
McAllion, John


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Derek
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Macdonald, Calum


Foulkes, George
McFall, John


Fraser, John
McGrady, Eddie


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
McKelvey, William


Galbraith, Sam
Mackinlay, Andrew


Galloway, George
McLeish, Henry


Gapes, Mike
Maclennan, Robert


Garrett, John
McMaster, Gordon


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Gilbert, Dr John
MacShane, Denis


Godman, Dr Norman A
McWilliam, John


Godsiff, Roger
Madden, Max


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Graham, Thomas
Mandelson, Peter


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Gunnell, John
Maxton, John


Hain, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Hall, Mike
Meale, Alan


Hanson, David
Michael, Alun


Hardy, Peter
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Milburn, Alan


Harvey, Nick
Miller, Andrew


Hattersley, Roy
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Henderson, Doug
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Morley, Elliot


Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoey, Kate
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie






Mudie, George
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mullin, Chris
Soley, Clive


Murphy, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Steel, Sir David


O'Hara, Edward
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Stevenson, George


Orme, Stanley
Stott, Roger


Parry, Robert
Strang, Dr Gavin


Pearson, Ian
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pope, Greg
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Thurnham, Peter


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Timms, Stephen


Prescott, John
Tipping, Paddy


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Touhig, Don


Purchase, Ken
Trickett, Jon


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis


Radice, Giles
Tyler, Paul


Randall, Stuart
Vaz, Keith


Raynsford, Nick
Walker, Sir Harold


Reid, Dr John
Wallace, James


Rendel, David
Walley, Ms Joan


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Watson, Mike


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Andrew


Rooker, Jeff
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooney, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wilson, Brian


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Shore, Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Short, Clare



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. John Cummings and


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Mrs. Bridget Prentice.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boyson, Sir Rhodes


Aitken, Jonathan
Brandreth, Gyles


Alexander, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Bright, Sir Graham


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brooke, Peter


Amess, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)


Ancram, Michael
Browning, Mrs Angela


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Atkins, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Butcher, John


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Butler, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Bates, Michael
Carrington, Matthew


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Cash, William


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Beresford, Sir Paul
Churchill, Mr


Biffen, John
Clappison, James


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Booth, Hartley
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Coe, Sebastian


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Congdon, David


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Conway, Derek


Bowis, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)





Cope, Sir John
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Cran, James
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Day, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Key, Robert


Dover, Den
King, Tom


Duncan, Alan
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Elletson, Harold
Knox, Sir David


Emery, Sir Peter
Kynoch, George


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Lamont, Norman


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Ian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evennett, David
Legg, Barry


Faber, David
Leigh, Edward


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lidington, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Sir Norman
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gale, Roger
Madel, Sir David


Gallie, Phil
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gardiner, Sir George
Major, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorst, Sir John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, David


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Tony


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heath, Sir Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Higgins, Sir Terence
Patten, John


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, David






Portillo, Michael
Sykes, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Redwood, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Richards, Rod
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Riddick, Graham
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Rowe, Andrew
Tracey, Richard


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Tredinnick, David


Ryder, Richard
Trend, Michael


Sackville, Tom
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, William


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Walden, George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Wells, Bowen


Soames, Nicholas
Wheeler, Sir John


Speed, Sir Keith
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spencer, Sir Derek
Whittingdale, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilkinson, John


Spring, Richard
Willetts, David


Sproat, Iain
Wilshire, David


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Stanley, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Steen, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Stephen, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael
Young, Sir George


Stewart, Allan



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Anthony Coombs and


Sweeney, Walter
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 6, line 26, leave out '245F' and insert '245G'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 151, in page 7, line 2, after 'shall', insert
'ascertain from the offender

(i) where he lives and if he intends to move during the currency of the order;
(ii) if he works, attends school or other educational establishment;
(iii) if he owns or rents his accommodation; and
(iv) if his religion or beliefs require him to be present at a defined location for a specified period of time and.'.

Government amendments Nos. 107, 5, 108 and 6.

No. 220, in page 7, line 39, after '(9)', insert
'Subject to subsection (9A) below'.

Government amendments Nos. 7 and 251.

No. 221, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—
'(9A) No regulations under subsection (9) above shall be made after the first regulations have been made under that subsection until the Secretary of State shall have laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement assessing the effectiveness of the first regulations made under that subsection.'.

Government amendment No. 8.

No. 222, in page 8, line 4, leave out
'annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either'
and insert
'approved by resolution of each'.

Government amendments Nos. 9 to 12, 112, 13, 113, 14 to 17, 114, 18 to 21 and 116.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: These are technical amendments. I shall be happy to speak to any of them, if the House so wishes.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 220 to 222, which my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I tabled.
The amendments, of which amendment No. 221 is the main one, relate to the Government's proposed pilot project for electronic tagging. The purpose of amendment No. 221 is to bring the results of the pilot project back to Parliament for a full debate before we consider whether it should be extended to the whole of Scotland.
Although the explanatory and financial memorandum to the original draft of the Bill noted that the Government intended to set up a pilot project for restriction of liberty orders—or, as we have called it, electronic tagging—there is no mention of the pilot in the Bill. Instead, the legislation overrides the need to evaluate the feasibility of the disposal, and empowers the Government to extend the restriction of liberty orders nationwide and to change the nature of the disposal, without the requirement to seek the approval of Parliament in subsequent legislation. Any subsequent regulations will be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. That is a negative resolution procedure that does not permit debate on the Floor of the House.
There are several general concerns about electronic monitoring of offenders—a number were raised in a previous debate on the tagging of those under age 16—and those objections strengthen the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny and evaluation of the pilot project before the disposal is extended across Scotland. The case is also strengthened by the Government's concession to the legal profession over the pilot project that will establish a public defender system.
In spite of comparative examples that have led the Government to believe that a public defender system could work in Scotland, they have decided to restrict the legislation's provisions to a limited pilot study which, after three years, will have to come before Parliament to be either withdrawn or renewed or extended by primary legislation. If that is deemed correct for the proposed public defender project—it clearly is—I contend that the electronic tagging provisions, which are untried and untested in a Scottish context, merit similar scrutiny and evaluation by Parliament. I do not see why there should be one rule in respect of the public defender system and another in respect of electronic tagging.
Reference has been made to trials in England, which commenced in June 1995 and will continue until March 1997. They are monitored by Securicor in Manchester and Reading and by Geographix in Norfolk. I listened with interest to the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) about Securicor and the value that it perceives in the electronic tagging concept I suspect that the only value Securicor is interested in is the "loads of dosh" value from which it and other private companies will benefit. That is a grave concern for many Opposition Members.
After the first full year of trials, the average cost was estimated at £14,000 per offender. That compares with an average cost of £2,500 per probation order. The trials in England have also demonstrated that the tag can have a stigmatising effect for the wearer. In November 1995, Richard McGuiness was reported to have removed his tag after being assaulted when he was allegedly mistaken for the only other person to be tagged in Reading—a sex offender whose case had been well documented in the local media.
It is interesting to note that there were only two taggings in the whole of Reading. The Government gave the impression that many people would be running around with electronic tags but, in reality, tags are used in only a limited number of cases. Participants also noted that it was difficult to find employment while being monitored, partly because of the longer curfew hours for unemployed accused and partly because of the stigma associated with the anklet.
Tagging is no substitute for projects that concentrate on the offender's behaviour. Concerns were expressed in Committee about the impact of electronic tagging on the offender and on his or her family. It was felt that, in some cases, family members who have to cope with a difficult offender will be punished although they have committed no crime. During the fourth sitting of the Committee, the Minister promised that
if any difficulties"—
with regard to family members—
arise, they will be taken fully into account before extending such schemes more widely".
However, it is uncertain how we will develop a clear picture of any difficulties without the involvement of social workers or probation officers. In the clause stand part debate in Committee, the Minister said:
The Bill's provision will permit restriction of liberty orders to be introduced in Scotland on a pilot basis. Even those … who have doubts about the proposal's effectiveness cannot object to it being tried out in practice to establish whether it has a useful role to play."—[Official Report. First Scottish Standing Committee. 19 November 1996: c. 152. 172.]
Given the concerns and the uncertainty surrounding the disposal, the Government would surely not object to Parliament's debating fully the results of the pilot study so that Parliament could determine whether it can play a useful role. Why is the Minister's approach to electronic monitoring different from his approach to the public defender project, the results of which must be reported to Parliament? I shall press amendment No. 221 to a vote at a later stage.

Dr. Godman: The remarks of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) make a lot of sense. The Minister offered to answer any questions that hon. Members may have concerning the Government

amendments, but I have a query about the hon. Lady's amendments. What group of people would carry out the evaluation of the pilot study? Would Scottish Office officials perform that function or would the Scottish Office commission independent analysts to evaluate the trials?
I refer the Minister to Government amendment No. 251—if I can catch his ear, as he is blethering away—which mentions district courts. Would that include the district court in Greenock? I do not want a pilot study or trial to be carried out in my constituency as I genuinely believe that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) said, severely deprived youngsters from council schemes would be singled out. Where does Greenock district court stand in relation to amendment No. 251?

Mr. McFall: I commend the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) for introducing amendment No. 221, which we support. The Minister has been in correspondence with me about amendment No. 151—notably in a letter dated 30 December—because we raised certain matters in Committee. We are concerned about the offender. We would like the Bill to take into consideration where the offender lives and whether he intends to move during the currency of the order; if he works, attends school or another educational establishment; if he owns or rents accommodation; and, lastly, if his religion or beliefs require him to be present at a defined location for a specific period.
Freedom of religion and tolerance are recognised in the terms of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Section 12(3) states:
The requirements in a curfew order shall … avoid

(a) any conflict with the offender's religious beliefs or with the requirements of any other community order … and
(b) any interference with the times … he normally works or attends school".

The amendment ensures that a court obtains certain information from an offender before imposing the order. It ensures, therefore, that the court will examine whether it is appropriate to make such an order, taking account of the offender's circumstances. I seek the Minister's views on those points.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was asked about research. It has not been decided who should conduct the research. In England, it was conducted by Home Office researchers, and I believe that in Scotland Scottish Office researchers will be able to perform that function. However, as I have said, no decision has been taken.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) asked about amendment No. 251. If the availability of restriction of liberty orders is extended, such extension can, if appropriate, be limited to the stipendiary magistrates arm of the district court. It seems sensible to allow such a distinction, because the sentencing powers of stipendiary magistrates correspond to those of a sheriff under summary jurisdiction, rather than to those of other district courts.
We debated amendment No. 151 in Committee, and I wrote to Committee members about an aspect of it on 30 December. As I said on both occasions, I do not dispute that the factors specified may be relevant to the making of a restriction of liberty order, but I am not convinced that the proposed mechanism is necessary or appropriate, so I am unable to accept that amendment.
Amendments Nos. 220, 221 and 222, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), would require that when courts are being empowered to make restriction of liberty orders, and when methods of monitoring compliance with such orders are being specified, that should be done by regulation subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses.
Those amendments would also require that such regulations could not be altered before the Secretary of State had laid before both Houses a statement assessing the effectiveness of the regulations. We believe that the amendments are technically flawed, but I do not make too much of that point. The main reason for opposing them is that they would introduce an inappropriately burdensome procedure for prescribing which courts and which methods of monitoring are to be authorised in relation to restriction of liberty orders.
6 pm
Scots law does not require such a procedure to be followed for other community disposals. For example, when a court is being empowered to make community service orders, there is no requirement either for regulations to be subject to affirmative resolution or for a prior statement. Scots law merely requires the Secretary of State to notify a court that the necessary arrangements exist.
We intend to be as open as possible about the operation of restriction of liberty orders. I am happy to give a commitment that, before moving beyond the proposed pilot schemes, we will fully assess those schemes and make the results available. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press her amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 246, in page 6, line 43, leave out
'for any period up to 12 months'
and insert—

'(a) in respect of an offender other than a child offender, for any period up to 12 months; and
(b) in respect of a child offender, and subject to subsection (3A) below, for any period up to 6 months.

(3A) A requirement under subsection (2)(a) above made in respect of a child offender may not be made for a period in excess of 3 months.

No. 107, in page 7, line 11, leave out second 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 5, in page 7, line 11, after 'person' insert 'responsible for'.

No. 108, in page 7, line 16, leave out second 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 6, in page 7, line 17, leave out 'monitor' and insert 'be responsible for monitoring'.

No. 247, in page 7, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) Without prejudice to subsection (6) above, before making a restriction of liberty order in respect of a child offender the court shall obtain and consider information about that offender's family circumstances and the likely effect on those circumstances of the order which the court is proposing to make.'.

No. 109, in page 7, line 33, leave out
'Subject to subsection (8) below'.

No. 110, in page 7, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.

No. 248, in page 7, line 41, leave out 'and'.

No. 249, in page 7, line 44, at end insert 'and
(c) the class or classes of offenders in respect of which restriction of liberty orders may be made,'.

No. 250, in page 7, line 46, leave out '(a) and (b)' and insert '(b) and (c)'.

No. 7, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—
'( ) Regulations under subsection (9) above may make such transitional and consequential provisions, including provision in relation to the continuing effect of any restriction of liberty order in force when new regulations are made, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
( ) A court shall not make a restriction of liberty order which requires an offender to be in or, as the case may be, not to be in, a particular place or places unless it is satisfied that his compliance with that requirement can be monitored by the means of monitoring which it intends to specify in the order.'.

No. 251, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—
( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (9) above, in relation to district courts, regulations under that subsection may make provision as respects such courts by reference to whether the court is constituted by a stipendiary magistrate or by one or more justices'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Amendment proposed: No. 221, in page 7, line 47, at end insert—
'(9A) No regulations under subsection (9) above shall be made after the first regulations have been made under that subsection until the Secretary of State shall have laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement assessing the effectiveness of the first regulations made under that subsection.'.—[Ms Roseanna Cunningham.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 287.

Division No. 60]
[6.3 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cox, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dafis, Cynog


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashdown, Paddy
Davidson, Ian


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Barron, Kevin
Dixon, Don


Beith, A J
Donohoe, Brian H


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benn, Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bermingham, Gerald
Ennis, Jeff


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Canavan, Dennis
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Gapes, Mike


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
George, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godsiff, Roger


Connarty, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Gordon, Ms Mildred






Graham, Thomas
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Grocott, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gunnell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike
Morley, Elliot


Hanson, David
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hardy, Peter
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Henderson, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pickthall, Colin


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter L


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pope, Greg


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Prescott, John


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hutton, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Ingram, Adam
Rooney, Terry


Janner, Greville
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Sheldon, Robert


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Shore, Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Simpson, Alan


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Kennedy, Chartes (Ross C & S)
Spearing, Nigel


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Spellar, John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Steel, Sir David


Kirkwood, Archy
Steinberg, Gerry


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Terry
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Livingstone, Ken
Thurnham, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Timms, Stephen


McAllion, John
Trickett, Jon


McAvoy, Thomas
Tyler, Paul


Macdonald, Calum
Vaz, Keith


McFall, John
Wallace, James


McKelvey, William
Watson, Mike


Mackinlay, Andrew
Wigley, Dafydd


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


McMaster, Gordon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


McWilliam, John
Wilson, Brian


Madden, Max
Winnick, David


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ms Roseanna Cunningham.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Booth, Hartley


Aitken, Jonathan
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Sir Rhodes


Arbuthnot, James
Brandreth, Gyles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brazier, Julian


Ashby, David
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brooke, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Budgen, Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Burns, Simon


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Bellingham, Henry
Butcher, John


Bendall, Vivian
Butler, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Butterfill, John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Carlisle, John (Luton N)





Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Sir Edward


Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushdiffe)
Heseltine, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Sir Terence


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Sir John
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Curry, David
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Jessel, Toby


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Eggar, Tim
Knox, Sir David


Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Norman


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Lang, Ian


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Luff, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Sir Norman
MacGregor, John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maclean, David


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Major, John


Gardiner, Sir George
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mans, Keith


Garnier, Edward
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorst, Sir John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Mellor, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gummer, John
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Norris, Steve
Stanley, Sir John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Steen, Anthony


Ottaway, Richard
Stephen, Michael


Page, Richard
Stern, Michael


Paice, James
Stewart, Allan


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Streeter, Gary


Patten, John
Sumberg, David


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Sweeney, Walter


Pawsey, James
Sykes, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Porter, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Powell, William (Corby)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Redwood, John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Richards, Rod
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Riddick, Graham
Tracey, Richard


Robathan, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'dn S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Viggers, Peter


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waldegrave, William


Rowe, Andrew
Walden, George


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sackville, Tom
Ward, John


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Waterson, Nigel


Shaw, David (Dover)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Wheeler, Sir John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whittingdale, John


Shersby, Sir Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Sims, Sir Roger
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Willetts, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Wilshire, David


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesf'ld)


Speed, Sir Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Spencer, Sir Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Young, Sir George


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Sproat, Iain
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 8, line 1, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 2 and insert
'substitute for the period of—

(a) hours for the time being mentioned in subsection (2); or
(b) months for the time being mentioned in subsection (3) or (3A),

such period of hours or, as the case may be, months as may be prescribed in the regulations'.

No. 252, in page 8, line 5, at end insert—
'(12) For the purposes of this section and sections 245B to 245G of this Act—

"child offender" means an offender under the age of 16 years at the date of his conviction; and
"offender" includes "child offender".'.

No. 9, in page 8, line 10, leave out
'name of the person who is to' and insert
'person or class or description of persons who may'.

No. 10, in page 8, line 14, leave out from 'shall' to 'the' in line 15 and insert
'include provision in the order for making a person notified by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above, or a class or description of persons so notified, responsible for the monitoring of.

No. 11, in page 8, line 16, after 'person' insert
'or class or description of persons'.

No. 12, in page 8, line 18, after 'shall' insert ', if necessary,'.

No. 223, in page 8, line 39, at end insert—

'Concurrent probation and restriction of liberty orders

245CC.—(1) Notwithstanding section 228(1) and 245A(1) of this Act, where the court—
(a) intends to make a restriction of liberty order under section 245A(1); and
(b) considers it expedient—

(i) having regard to the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the character of the offender; and
(ii) having obtained a report as to the circumstances and character of the offender,

that the offender should also to 25 be subject to a probation order made under section 228(1) of this Act,
it may make both such orders in respect of the offender.

(2) Where the court makes both a restriction of liberty order and a probation order by virtue of subsection (1) above, the clerk of the court shall send a copy of each order to both—

(a) any person responsible for monitoring the offender's compliance with the restriction of liberty order; and
(b) the officer of the local authority who is to supervise the probationer.

(3) Where the offender by an act or omission fails to comply with a requirement of an order made by virtue of subsection (1) above—

(a) if the failure relates to a requirement contained in a probation order and is dealt with under section 232(2)(c) of this Act, the court may, in addition, exercise the power conferred by section 245E(2)(b) of this Act in relation to the restriction of liberty order; and
(b) if the failure relates to a requirement contained in a restriction of liberty order and is dealt with under section 245E(2)(b) of this Act, the court may, in addition, exercise the power conferred by section 232(2)(c) in relation to the probation order.

(4) Where the offender by an act or omission fails to comply with both a requirement contained in a probation order and a requirement contained in a restriction of liberty order to which he is subject by virtue of subsection (1) above, he may, without prejudice to subsection (3) above, be dealt with as respects that act or omission either under section 232(2) of this Act or under section 245E(2) of this Act but he shall not be liable to be otherwise dealt with in respect of that act or omission.'.

No. 112, in page 8, line 41, leave out second 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 13, in page 8, line 41, after 'person' insert 'responsible for'.

No. 113, in page 8, line 45, leave out second 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 14, in page 8, line 45, after 'person' insert 'responsible for'.

No. 15, in page 8, line 46, after 'may' insert 'by order'.

No. 16, in page 9, line 1, leave out 'or'.

No. 253, in page 9, line 2, after '245A(3)' insert
'or, as the case may be, (3A)'.

No. 17, in page 9, line 3, at end insert'; or
(d) revoking the order.
(3) Where the court, on the application of a person other than the offender, proposes to—

(a) exercise the power conferred by paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) above to vary (otherwise than by deleting a requirement) a restriction of liberty order, it shall cite the offender to appear before the court and section 245A(4) shall apply to the variation of such an order as it applies to the making of an order; and
(b) exercise the power conferred by subsection (2)(d) above to revoke such an order and deal with the offender under section 245EE of this Act, it shall issue a citation requiring him to appear before the court.

(4) If an offender fails to appear before the court after having been cited in accordance with subsection (3) above, the court may issue a warrant for his arrest.'.

No. 114, in page 9, line 13, after 'failed' insert 'without reasonable excuse'.—

No. 18, in page 9, line 14, leave out
'vary the order or revoke it' and insert
'by order—

(a) without prejudice to the continuance in force of the order, impose a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale;
(b) vary the restriction of liberty order; or
(c) revoke that order.

( ) A fine imposed under this section in respect of a failure to comply with the requirements of a restriction of liberty order shall be deemed for the purposes of any enactment to be a sum adjudged to be paid by or in respect of a conviction or a penalty imposed on a person summarily convicted.'.

No. 19, in page 9, line 17, after 'in' insert
'paragraphs (a) to (c) of.

No. 20, in page 9, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 19 and insert—

'Disposal on revocation of restriction of liberty order

245EE.—(1) Where the court revokes a restriction of liberty order under section 245D(2)(d) or 245E(2) of this Act.'

No. 115, in page 9, line 22, at end insert—
'(2) Where the court revokes a restriction of liberty order as mentioned in subsection (1) above, and the offender is, by virtue of section 245CC(1) of this Act, subject to a probation order, it shall, before disposing of the offender under subsection (1) above, discharge the probation order.'.

No. 21, in page 9, line 31, leave out
'the person responsible for monitoring the order'
and insert
'a person nominated for the purpose of this paragraph by the Secretary of State'.

No. 116, in page 9, line 45, after 'circumstances.' insert—

'Procedure on variation or revocation of restriction of liberty order

245G. Where a court exercises any power conferred by sections 232(3A), 245D(2) or 245E(2)(b) or (c) of this Act, the clerk of the court shall forthwith give copies of the order varying or revoking the restriction of liberty order to any person responsible for monitoring the offender's compliance with that order and that person shall give a copy of the order to the offender.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 5

DISPOSAL IN CASES OF MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 10, line 28, leave out '28' and insert '7'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 23, 24, 254 and 25.

No. 142, in clause 6, page 12, line 32, at end insert—

'(aa) A patient shall not be remitted to prison in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above until and unless—

(i) the case has been referred back to the court that imposed the hospital direction; and
(ii) the court is satisfied that the remittance to prison would not be injurious to the patient's mental health.

(ab) In order to determine the impact of the remittance to prison on the patient's mental health, the court shall consider the written or oral evidence of two medical practitioners (complying with section 61 of this Act).
(ac) Where a court is satisfied under (aa)(ii) above that the remittance to prison would be injurious to the patient's mental health, the court may revoke the hospital direction and—

(i) impose a hospital order (with or without a restriction order); or
(ii) impose no further penalty.'.

Government amendments Nos. 26, 117 and 118.

No. 143, in clause 20, page 23, line 39, after '60A', insert '(1)'.

No. 144, in page 23, line 48, at end insert—
'(2) Where a court determines under section 62A(4)(ac) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 above not to remit a patient to prison, the Prosecutor may appeal against this determination—

(a) if it appears to him that the determination was inappropriate, or
(b) on a point of law.

and an appeal under this section shall be treated in the same manner as an appeal against sentence under section 108 of this Act.'.

Government amendments Nos. 79, 277, 126, 278, 279 and 80 to 82.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can speak briefly, as the amendments arise from amendments—and arguments—presented by Opposition Members in Committee, which I accepted in principle. However, I should mention one point specifically. Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 would, following the making of a hospital direction, reduce the maximum time for which a person may be in transit between the court and the hospital from 28 to seven days, and add to the list of those who may so convey the person an officer on the staff of that hospital. The other amendments are procedural.

Dr. Godman: Amendment No. 23 says that, in addition to a constable and a mental health officer, an officer on the staff of the hospital can perform escort duties. Will the Minister confirm that most mental health officers are social workers who have undergone specific training in the mental health sector? Surely he would not expect someone to be escorted by a mental health officer—a social worker. Surely such escort duties would be undertaken by a police officer or, as the amendment says,
an officer on the staff of the hospital specified".

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am certain that sensible arrangements will be made, which will not burden those concerned, but the amendment arose out of an Opposition request in Standing Committee. I think that the hon. Gentleman was not on the Standing Committee. The amendment reflects the Committee's wishes, and is a step forward.

Mr. McAllion: This group of amendments deals with a new court order, which is called a hospital direction; it is sometimes referred to as a hybrid order. It gives the court new powers where offenders are found guilty of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment, but where the court judges that a prison term would not be insufficient to deal with such offenders. In addition to any prison sentence, the court is empowered to direct that the prisoners should be detained in hospital.
If the patient, or the prisoner, recovers from the mental disorder in hospital, the idea behind the hospital direction is that he would be returned to serve the rest of his sentence in prison. Amendment No. 143 seeks to deal with the damaging consequences that may arise out of that situation.
I am particularly concerned about the type of offenders who will come under the provisions of the clause. The notes on clauses make it clear the people who are affected by it—obviously, not all prisoners but only certain groups of prisoners. The notes say that the clause affects prisoners who are well enough to have stood trial, but who also suffer from a mental disorder to the extent that would warrant hospitalisation. It is the use of the term "mental disorder" that I want to bring to the House's attention. I want to plead with the Minister to think again before he commits this provision to the statute book, because it would affect people in the real world.
The idea of hybrid orders came out of a working party that was set up in 1994 by the Home Office and the Department of Health in England and Wales. It was chaired by a Dr. John Reed—not, I think, the Dr. John Reid who is Labour spokesman on defence. The working party recommended that hybrid orders should be introduced, but it made it clear that the recommendations related only to prisoners/patients who were suffering from what it termed a "psychopathic disorder".
Psychopathic disorder is one form of mental disorder that is defined in the English Mental Health Act 1983. It has a specific meaning, but it is not defined in Scottish legislation. The working party made it clear that it was concerned about whether people with a psychopathic disorder were in any sense treatable in hospital in any case. That was why it introduced the hybrid order. When the Minister transferred that concept from the working party in England and Wales to Scottish legislation, he completely misunderstood the purpose that lies behind the hybrid order.
Dr. Helen Kirk, one of the most distinguished consultant forensic psychiatrists in Scotland, who works at Murray Royal hospital in Perth, wrote to me this month because she was concerned about the detail in the Bill. She said:
It is my understanding that originally this order was to apply only to psychopathic personalities.

Obviously, she was referring to the working party's report. She said that, if that were so, there was no problem with hybrid orders being applied to such cases, because
in Scotland, most such people"—
those with psychopathic personalities—
would not be admitted to hospital.
She wrote:
By definition psychopaths are said to be unable to learn by experience. Such a definition raises questions as to whether change can be effected by hospital treatment. Furthermore such individuals are extremely disruptive and destructive in a ward to the disadvantage of other patients.
Dr. Kirk made it clear therefore that, if the hybrid order referred only to people suffering from a psychopathic personality, no one in Scotland would be concerned about the application of the clause. However, there is no such thing as a definition of a psychopathic personality in mental health legislation. The nearest we have is one of the definitions that is applied to mental illness. It states that it is
A persistent disorder manifested only by abnormally seriously aggressive or irresponsible conduct",
which
makes it appropriate for him"—
or her—
to receive medical treatment in a hospital",
which
is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration in the patient's condition.
Dr. Kirk is concerned that the clauses refer not to people who have a psychopathic personality or a psychopathic disorder but to people who have a mental disorder, and mental disorder has a different meaning in law in Scotland. It refers, first, to people with mental illness and, secondly, to people who have mental handicaps—mental impairment or severe mental impairment. As Dr. Kirk said, for such people prison is no kind of answer. She wrote:
The mentally handicapped … have no place in a prison nor do those with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or manic depressive illness.
Those are comments by someone who is an expert in dealing with offenders who are sent to Murray Royal hospital for forensic psychiatry, often by the courts. She should know better than any hon. Member that, if we include mental disorder in the terms of this law, we will begin to create much damage for vulnerable people in society. She said that all psychiatrists throughout Scotland would resist such people being sent to prison once they are better. For a start, she pointed out that, if anyone came out of serious mental illness and had recovered, only to be told that he was to be sent back to prison to serve the rest of his sentence, the most likely effect would be a relapse into illness, and all the good work in the hospital would be undone as a result.
Dr. Kirk also pointed out that, if the proposed law included all types of mental disorder,
the likely outcome would be hospital beds (which are relentlessly diminishing in numbers) would be blocked by patients ready for discharge but who have to mark time while the tariff"—
the prison sentence—was served out.
If the threat of being sent back to prison is there when the patient is sent to hospital, the consultants in the hospital will allow that patient to block the bed in the


hospital, rather than release him, because going back to prison is likely to lead to a relapse. By including the clause, the Minister has made a gross mistake in transferring an English concept to Scottish law, misunderstanding what the English concept was about and applying it wrongly to Scotland.
Amendment No. 142 tries to salvage something by saying that, before someone is returned to prison, the matter must go back to court, which must be satisfied that there will not be a relapse of the condition if the patient is sent back to prison. The Minister is creating a bureaucratic maze and a nightmare for many people who suffer from genuine illness and who come before the courts. I plead with him to ensure that, before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, he will get in touch personally with people such as Dr. Kirk at the Murray Royal, and speak to them about their concerns, because we are making a terrible mistake.
This is not a party political point. If my Front-Bench team had introduced this measure, I would have made the same speech. We will be making a terrible mistake if we allow the hospital directions to go through in these terms, because they will encompass people who should never be sent to prison, and who will not be sent to prison anyway. The clause will be a nightmare for consultants, the mentally ill and the prisons.

Dr. Godman: I share some of the serious reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). A court has to be satisfied by way of the written or oral evidence of two medical practitioners, by which is meant consultant psychiatrists. In the context of amendment No. 242, before a person can be transferred to the prison system would consultant psychiatrists be involved in an examination in the hospital?
The Minister reminded the House that I was not a member of the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill. Which hospitals are we discussing? We are speaking not just about Carstairs prison but about several hospitals in Scotland. What role does the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland play in the scheme? I have the greatest respect for the members of that commission and I should like to know whether they would be concerned with the development of a patient's treatment in hospital. Would the commission be informed if it were decided that a person was to be placed in prison and that his condition had changed dramatically during his hospital stay?
If medical practitioners are involved in the determination of a hospital direction, then, in the context of amendment No. 142, they should also be involved in deciding whether a patient should be sent to Barlinnie or Greenock or to some other penal establishment. Despite agreements in Committee, the clause has woeful deficiencies. Perhaps the Minister would reply to my question about the role of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland and say whether consultant psychiatrists outwith a hospital would be involved in the decision to remit a person to prison.

Mr. McFall: We debated amendment No. 142 in Committee and the Minister said that he would consider it. However, there are still glaring deficiencies in the measure. We have been contacted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Edinburgh Healthcare NHS trust, the consultant forensic psychiatrist, Derrick Chiswick, and by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The comments by those people have to be taken seriously by the Minister.
The danger in the legislation is that the combination of prison and the hospital direction will be used not instead of a prison sentence but instead of a hospital order. People should not be punished for having mental disorder Amendment No. 142 seeks to guard against the risk of transferring people to prison who would more appropriately continue to receive hospital treatment. The decision to transfer a person subject to a hospital direction from hospital to prison should rest with the court, which would be duly advised by consultant psychiatrists. The decision should not be the sole responsibility of doctors.
Dr. Chiswick was a member of the Reed committee in 1994 and says that the committee made proposals which in England and Wales distinguish between the different categories of mental disorder. However, for Scotland there is a hybrid proposal which will not serve our interests. In his letter, Dr. Chiswick states:
hospital direction would not apply to people with a mental illness or a mental handicap. It would only apply to those where the mental disorder is a persistent one manifested by abnormally aggressive or serious irresponsible conduct which is a near equivalent of the English Mental Health Act category of psychopathic disorder.
In summing up, he states:
I am aware that the working of the law in relation to mentally disordered offenders is something of an arcane affair but I do urge you most strongly to try and prevent the passage of Clause 5 in its current form. It will do no good but may do much harm.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has also written to us. I have a letter from Dr. McCreadie, who is the chairman of the Scottish division, saying that the mental health provisions have been adopted in clause 36 of the Crime (Sentences) Bill and that the Scottish Bill proposes the use of hospital direction for all categories of mentally disordered offenders. We take exception to that.
The royal college says that among the implications would be the need for more secure beds. The letter states:
While the Scottish Office expects that only a dozen or so such Hospital Directions would be made in the course of any one year, it is clear that there will be cumulative effects which will have major implications for the number of beds required in conditions of security for mentally disordered offenders. In particular, there will be a need for many more beds in the State Hospital, where such patients are likely to be treated, and if it is considered that return to prison would lead to a relapse in their mental condition. Length of stay in hospital will be directed by the length of sentence rather than by clinical need or public safety issues.
The Minister must treat those concerns seriously.
Dr. McCreadie also mentions an increase in the number of mentally disordered people in prison. His letter goes on:
To avoid the risk of a Hospital Direction being imposed, psychiatrists may be reluctant to recommend a conventional Hospital Order resulting in more mentally ill people in the prison system.


The Opposition do not want that, and nor do the professionals, and I hope that the Government do not want it either.
In the part of his letter dealing with the possibility of risk, Dr. McCreadie states:
There may well be an increased risk to the public. Patients under Hospital Directions will not benefit from the indefinite follow-up which is provided by the current legislation relating to Restriction Orders.
The letter suggests a solution. It states:
If the new Hospital Direction is to be introduced in Scotland then the Ministers should be urged to restrict it to those patients who would fall within the definition of Psychopathic Disorder in the English Mental Health Act.
That is the Act that flowed from the Reed committee. The letter goes on:
While there is no exact category of Psychopathic Disorder in Scotland, it exists in terms of Section 17(1)(a)(i) in those cases where the 'mental disorder from which he suffers is a persistent one manifested only by abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct, such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition'.
Eminent psychiatrists and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have said that we are doing the wrong thing. I ask the Minister to take the issue seriously so that we may have appropriate legislation and not a defective measure which could increase the risk to the public.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Courts will act only on the basis of recommendations from psychiatrists and will take into account whether the accused's condition is treatable and therefore whether a hospital direction would be appropriate. I was asked whether the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland would have a role. At the moment, it has no role when a court is deciding on a disposal that involves sending somebody to hospital. Statute spells out what evidence shall be given to the court and by whom and the same will apply under hospital directions.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) asked why an order was to be made available for all forms of mental disorder. I am aware that the equivalent English conditions enable hospital orders to be made where the mental disorder is psychopathic, but it has been decided that for the time being it should be so limited in England and Wales. Scottish courts can make such an order in any case in which that is thought appropriate and the Home Secretary has power to extend hospital directions to other categories of mental disorder by order.
I listened carefully to hon. Members who spoke to amendment No. 142 and the related amendments, but I am not attracted to proposals that seem to be based on the assumption that hospital doctors will recommend to a sheriff or the Secretary of State for Scotland a course of action that would run counter to a patient's best interests—a course that would be injurious to the patient's mental health.
Let us first be clear that the situation with which the amendments deal is not new, merely arising out of the introduction of a hospital direction. The situation arises already with prisoners who become ill in prison and are transferred to hospital under a transfer direction. While their sentence of imprisonment is running, the only exit

from hospital for such patients leads back to prison. However, that will happen only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the criteria have been fully met.
The Secretary of State must be satisfied either that the person is not suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree that makes it appropriate for that person to be liable to be detained in hospital for medical treatment, or that it is not necessary for the health or safety of the person or for the protection of other persons that that person should receive such treatment. In either case, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it is not appropriate for the person to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment.
The House will be interested to know that, each year, there are about 60 transfers of prisoners to hospital, but that fewer than 20 prisoners move in the opposite direction; thus, there are many more transfers from prison to hospital than prisoners returning to prison. Most prisoners remain detained in hospital and—when appropriate, on expiry of their sentence—are released directly into the community.
I am convinced and confident that the same rigorous attention to health will apply to persons who are in hospital under the authority of a hospital direction, and that is what the Bill so provides. What prompts and will prompt consideration of whether a patient should be transferred to prison will be either an appeal by the patient to the sheriff or the hospital doctors' view that it is appropriate to recommend a return to prison to the Secretary of State. Therefore, given those safeguards, there should be no question that doctors would argue for such a transfer or that the sheriff or Secretary of State would agree to one if the considered medical view was that the patient required continued hospital treatment for his or her mental illness.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

EFFECT OF HOSPITAL DIRECTION

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 11, line 43, after 'officer' insert
', an officer on the staff of the hospital specified in the direction'.

No. 24, in page 12, line 2, leave out '28' and insert '7'.

No. 254, in page 12, line 6, at end insert—
'(1A) Where the managers of a hospital specified in a hospital direction propose to admit the patient to a hospital unit in that hospital, they shall, if that unit was not so specified, notify the Secretary of State and the Mental Welfare Commission of the patient's proposed admission to and detention in that unit; and the patient shall not be so admitted unless the Secretary of State has consented to the proposed admission.'.

No. 25, in page 12, line 7, leave out '28' and insert '7'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Amendment proposed: No. 142, in page 12, line 32, at end insert—

'(aa) A patient shall not be remitted to prison in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) above until and unless—

(i) the case has been referred back to the court that imposed the hospital direction; and
(ii) the court is satisfied that the remittance to prison would not be injurious to the patient's mental health.



(ab) In order to determine the impact of the remittance to prison on the patient's mental health, the court shall consider the written or oral evidence of two medical practitioners (complying with section 61 of this Act).
(ac) Where a court is satisfied under (aa)(ii) above that the remittance to prison would be injurious to the patient's mental health, the court may revoke the hospital direction and—

(i) impose a hospital order (with or without a restriction order): or
(ii) impose no further penalty.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 289.

Division No. 61]
[6.42 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Allen, Graham
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Alton, David
Hutton, John


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Ingram, Adam


Ashdown, Paddy
Janner, Greville


Austin-Walker, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Beith, A J
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Benn, Tony
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Bermingham, Gerald
Kaufman, Gerald


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Cann, Jamie
Livingstone, Ken


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Chisholm, Malcolm
McAllion, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
McAvoy, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Macdonald, Calum


Connarty, Michael
McFall, John


Corston, Ms Jean
McKelvey, William


Cox, Tom
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
McMaster, Gordon


Dafis, Cynog
McWilliam, John


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Davidson, Ian
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Milburn, Alan


Ennis, Jeff
Morley, Elliot


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Faulds, Andrew
Mudie, George


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Pendry, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Pickthall, Colin


George, Bruce
Pike, Peter L


Godman, Dr Norman A
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Grocott, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gunnell, John
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Hall, Mike
Reid, Dr John


Hanson, David
Rendel, David


Hardy, Peter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Harvey, Nick
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Sheerman, Barry


Home Robertson, John
Sheldon, Robert





Simpson, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Wallace, James


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Watson, Mike


Spearing, Nigel
Welsh, Andrew


Spellar, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Steel, Sir David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Greg Pope and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. John Cummings.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aitken, Jonathan
Curry, David


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ancram, Michael
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashby, David
Dover, Den


Atkins, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Elletson, Harold


Bates, Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evennett, David


Biffen, John
Faber, David


Body, Sir Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Booth, Hartley
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, Dudley


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Sir Norman


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Sir Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gallie, Phil


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gardiner, Sir George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Gorst, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, John


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Couchman, James
Heath, Sir Edward


Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David






Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Sir Terence
Pickles, Eric


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Portillo, Michael


Horam, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'dn S)


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Dame Angela


King, Tom
Ryder, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Kynoch, George
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Sir Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stewart, Allan


Mans, Keith
Streeter, Gary


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Moate, Sir Roger
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, John
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond





Whittingdale, John
Wolfson, Mark


Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Wood, Timothy


Wiggin Sir Jerry
Yeo, Tim


Wilkinson, John
Young, Sir George


Willetts, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Anthony Coombs and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 14, line 12, leave out 'order' and insert 'direction'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 9

MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS

Amendments made: No. 117, in page 15, line 30, leave out from 'words' to end of line 31 and insert
'from "under" to "this Act" there shall be substituted the words "in making a finding under section 54(1)(a) of this Act or under any of the relevant provisions";'.

No. 118, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
'(c) in subsection (2), for the words "the said section 58(1)(a)" there shall be substituted the words "any of the relevant provisions";
(d) in subsection (3), for the words "the said sections 54(1) and 58(1)(a)" there shall be substituted the words "making a finding under section 54(1)(a) of this Act or of any of the relevant provisions"; and
(e) after subsection (5) there shall be added the following subsection—
(6) In this section the "relevant provisions" means section 53(1), 54(1)(c), 58(1)(a) and 59A(3)(a) and (b) of this Act.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 13

INCREASE IN MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENCES

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 224, in page 17, line 8, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 225 and 226.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: a: The amendments relate to increased sentencing powers for certain sexual offences. They are a response to calls made by members of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 225, in page 17, line 10, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

No. 226, in page 17, line 13, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 14

DRIVING DISQUALIFICATIONS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 18, line 18, at end insert
'and, without prejudice to that generality, in relation to district courts an order under this subsection may make provision as respects such courts by reference to whether the court is constituted by a stipendiary magistrate or by one or more justices'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 30.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments relate to the extension of the powers of the courts to disqualify from driving for offences not directly related to road traffic offences.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 18, line 34, at end insert—
'( ) In section 14(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 (application of fines provisions to confiscation orders), after paragraph (k) there shall be added the following paragraph—
(1) section 248B.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 15

DESIGNATED LIFE PRISONERS

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 18, line 37, after 'prisoners)' insert
'—
(a)'.

No. 255, in page 18, line 42, leave out
'the sentence for which is not'
and insert
'for which, subject to paragraph (b) below, such a sentence is not the sentence'.

No. 32, in page 19, line 4, at end insert'; and
(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) the word "and" shall cease to have effect; and
(ii) after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the words—

; and
(c) where appropriate, the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 196(1) of the 1995 Act.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 21

APPEAL BY PROSECUTOR AGAINST FAILURE TO IMPOSE SUPERVISED RELEASE ORDER

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 24, leave out lines 1 to 17.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 22

APPEALS AGAINST ORDERS UNDER SECTION 49 OF THE 1995 ACT

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 24, line 29, at end insert 'and'.

No. 35, in page 24, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.

No 36, in page 24, line 42, leave out from 'Act;'" to end of page 25, line 3.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 25

EXTENSION OF POWER TO TAKE EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN BY COMMISSIONER

Amendment made: No. 227, in page 26, leave out lines 27 and 28.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 29

APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EARLY RELEASE

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in page 28, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert
'"prescribed minimum standard" means an absence of proved misconduct reports'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No 145, in page 28, line 7, after '(rules);', insert
'"prescribed minimum standard" means an absence of proved misconduct reports'.

Mr. McFall: The Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, among other bodies, was very concerned about the Government's approach, and believed that good behaviour should be the minimum standard required of all prisoners. The absence of misconduct reports considered and proved at a disciplinary hearing should be all that can be reasonably expected from most prisoners.
Given the patchy availability of programmes, education and work in the prison estate, it is suggested—I seek the Minister's comments on this—that it would be unfair to require prisoners to demonstrate
positive good behaviour and that they are making constructive use of their time in prison to address their offending behaviour. As appropriate, that might mean participating in a programme on drug addiction or anger management, as well as working productively in the prison workshops."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 November 1996; c. 294.]
Those are the Minister's comments in Committee.
Will the Prison Service have the capacity to make available to all the estimated 40,000 prisoners eligible for assessment of early release the opportunity to participate in programmes designed to address offending behaviour? Any extension of current programmes would require significant additional resources. The Government have not faced up to the issue.
One of the Opposition's serious concerns, which is shared by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, is the state of our Prison Service at the moment. We all recognise that if the Bill is enacted, within one year, the prison establishment will increase by 2,200 prisoners. I recommend the comments on Edinburgh prison in the chief inspector's report, which was released on 16 January. He said that if it was not overcrowded, it could be doing an awful lot better in guarding the public by reducing crime.
Let us consider just what is involved in the Government's approach to the extra prisoners. Under the Bill, every prisoner will expect the prisons to run


programmes to address offending behaviour. This year, the Government will require all prisons to commence a programme of mandatory drug testing for prisoners. All that will have to be done without additional resources.
At present, the Prison Service is required randomly to test a minimum of 10 per cent. of the prison population. With follow-up tests and tests for other reasons, that figure could be almost 15,000—or more than 1,000 drug tests per month. That will have to be done within a budget that is constrained at the moment. If prisoners are to be offered an educational programme, it is important that the Government address that issue. How can the Government offer programmes to 6,000 of the anticipated 8,400 prisoners who might be serving appropriately long sentences? If we do not have the resources for that, the Government will be letting the Prison Service in for a deluge of prisoner appeals, lawyers' letters and judicial reviews when prisoners are denied the opportunity to earn the early release provided for in the Bill.
Let us examine how such a system would operate. Each of the 6,000 prisoners from the predicted larger population would be entitled to a review every two months, or six times a year. That is a total of 36,000 reviews a year. In Committee, the Minister told us how early release would be calculated. He said:
assessments will not be made on the whim of one individual officer. We envisage that the governor or another senior manager will convene an assessment board to consider carefully reports from relevant staff on each prisoner, according to a range of criteria which would be set out in prison rules."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 28 November 1996; c. 275–76.]
7 pm
Each prisoner will receive a report every two months from his hall or gallery officer, his work or party officer and a programmes officer. Those reports will have to be requested, collated and processed. In addition, the assessment board will have to consider behaviour and misconduct reports. The board will have to be staffed, taking up valuable senior management time, to assess 36,000 reviews with perhaps more than 100,000 bits of paper. Each decision will have to be communicated to the prisoner and his new release date entered on to computer records and warrants. A prisoner may have his release date changed every two months.
In addition, staff will be required to make retrospective reports on untried prisoners, who are presumably considered innocent until found guilty by a court, when sentences are backdated to cover the period on remand. Decisions will have to be taken on them. Presumably they will not be expected to address their offending behaviour while maintaining a not guilty plea at court.
The Government are setting up a bureaucratic nightmare. They do not realise the practical effects on prisons. Do we want to end up with prisoners who are denied an early release programme to address their offending behaviour having judicial reviews and making the system even more chaotic than it currently is? The Minister should take note of the reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector on the state of prisons. He should be ashamed about what is happening in our prisons and should remember the need to keep public order in prisons. The people who offend and are a danger to society should

be in prison, but we do not want to return to the mid-1980s and the Peterhead prison riots. The amendment was designed to help avoid that.

Mr. James Wallace: I shall speak to amendment No. 145, which is phrased in almost identical terms to that moved by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I do not wish to detain the House long, because the hon. Member for Dumbarton made the pertinent points about the Government's proposed scheme for early release.
The Government will require prisoners to show positive behaviour rather than an absence of bad behaviour. The hon. Gentleman has underlined the scale of that undertaking and the number of reviews that will be needed. The system will also lead to pressure in prison. The fact that officers will be responsible for filing reports could put them in the way of intimidation and pressure from prisoners or could open the way to favouritism. I do not believe that to be satisfactory. It may not happen, but the concern has been raised before and has never been properly allayed by Ministers.
The other important point relates to the recent report by the chief inspector of prisons in Scotland, referred to by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. If prisoners are to be obliged to show positive behaviour to achieve early release, the resources ought to be available for them to follow various courses that might lead to early release. Under the present regime, many courses that would lead to rehabilitation are not possible because of a lack of resources. That problem will become more acute under the Government's proposed new early release regime.
I do not believe that the Government have thought through the practical implications of their proposals. That is why the system proposed by the two amendments, under which the prescribed minimum standard would be the absence of proved misconduct reports, is more practical and would, in the long term, lead to less tension in Scotland's prisons.

Mr. Gallie: I should like to make a quick contribution, picking up on some of the points made by the hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I accept some of their points, but do they honestly believe it right that someone who is sentenced to four years should be released automatically halfway through that sentence? The Bill addresses that and I believe that people in Scotland will warmly welcome it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The prescribed minimum standard defined in amendments Nos. 132 and 145 is:
an absence of proved misconduct reports.
We discussed a similar proposal in Committee on 28 November, when I explained that we thought the proposal unhelpful.
The earning of early release should require more than simply not breaching prison discipline. Prisoners should have to demonstrate positive good behaviour and that they are making constructive use of their time in prison to address their offending behaviour. For the first 12 months of a sentence, the prescribed minimum standard of behaviour will be set out in the prison rules.
Examples of behaviour that might attain the minimum standard are: conforming with the prison rules; avoiding violent or threatening behaviour, intimidation and aggressive language; co-operation with staff; respecting others' property; and abstaining from drugs and alcohol. That is no less than should be expected of prisoners. I invite the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 228, in page 28, line 11, at end insert 'the 1989 Act and'.

No. 229, in page 28, line 13, leave out 'the 1993 Act' and insert 'either of those Acts'.

No. 230, in page 28, line 16, after 'amendments' insert—

'(a) to the 1989 Act made by sections 38. 39 and 40 of, paragraph 8(2) and (4) of Schedule 1 to, and the repeal of the words from "including" to the end of section 3(1) of that Act made by Schedule 3 to, this Act; and
(b)'.

No. 231, in page 28, line 17, after '(10)(b)' insert ',(11)(a)'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 30

EARLY RELEASE

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 28, line 27, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 38, 39, 241, 233, 40, and 102, Government new schedule 2, and Government amendments Nos. 121 and 103.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 have been tabled to address a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). He was concerned that if the new early release scheme applied only to those serving three months or more, someone serving a slightly shorter sentence would have to serve longer than someone sentenced to exactly three months who earned full early release.
We have dealt with that point by providing in amendment No. 37 that all those serving more than two months will be eligible to earn early release. At the same time, we have made it clear in amendments Nos. 38 and 39 that no prisoner can be released earlier than the day after his assessment.
Amendment No. 233 was drawn up following discussions in Committee on the procedure under which a prisoner may make appeals in relation to awards of early release days. Since consideration in Committee, we have given full consideration to that procedure. The details will be spelled out in the prison rules.
We now envisage a three-stage process. The amendment makes it clear that there will be more than one level of appeal. The process will be based on the existing complaints procedure. A governor or other senior manager will convene an internal assessment board to make initial decisions on the award of early release. If the prisoner is dissatisfied with the decision, his first avenue of appeal will be to the prison internal complaints

committee. Each prison has such a committee, chaired by a senior prison manager, with a minimum of three members. Membership is flexible, so that staff who were previously involved in the case will not become reinvolved at this stage.
If, following consideration of the case by the complaints committee, the prisoner remains dissatisfied, he will have a further appeal to the governor in charge, who will reconsider the case. It should be noted that half of all general complaints under the existing complaints procedure put to internal complaints committees are resolved at that stage and do not need to go to the governor, reducing the burden on him.
If the prisoner is still unhappy about the decision following reconsideration by the governor, there will be an appeal to the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 233 makes it clear that the rules may prescribe the Secretary of State for that purpose. The Secretary of State's functions in relation to the appeal will be exercised by the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, acting in the name of the Secretary of State. The Scottish prison complaints commissioner will become involved at that stage. Under the terms of the amendment, the rules will empower the Secretary of State to appoint a person to consider the appeal and report to him. He will, in all normal circumstances, ask the commissioner for a report on the case.
The prison rules would, therefore, formally specify the internal complaints committee, the governor in charge and the Secretary of State as the persons prescribed to consider appeals. The commissioner would provide the independent element in the process. He would not have the power to overturn the governor's decision at his own hand—which is what we had envisaged in Committee. However, we would expect the chief executive to take serious account of any factors that the commissioner may identify in his report in making his final decision on the case. I invite the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for saying that the amendment was tabled to address my proposals in Committee. Under the current arrangements, a prisoner sentenced to 12 weeks could be released before a prisoner who had been sentenced to 10 weeks. Therefore, a judge could sentence someone to 10 weeks in prison and the prisoner could say, "Give me 12 weeks as I will be out sooner." That was absurd. However, I have news for the Minister: the amendment fails to rectify the position completely.
I shall be brief, but constructive. In his letter to me dated 12 December, the Minister wrote:
I agree we should avoid any possibility of a situation where an offender sentenced to a period above the threshold can, by earning early release, reduce his sentence below that of a person who falls just below the threshold and who is therefore not eligible for early release. I aim to table amendments to achieve this on report.
However, lowering the threshold has not achieved the desired result. For example, a prisoner sentenced to 70 days could be released after 56 days, whereas a prisoner sentenced to 59 days could be released only after 59 days.
The amendment brings those serving between 60 and 89 days into the same position as those serving 90 days or more. In 1994, 1,366 prisoners came into that category, which represents about 58 per cent. of those serving fewer than 90 days. So the amendment would give large numbers of prisoners some prospect of early release that would not


have been available to them in the original Bill. What about those serving up to 59 days? Are they still to be denied any early release? That anomaly persists. In 1994, 901 or 91 per cent. of the 990 prisoners in that category were serving 30 days or fewer.
The Government have some thinking to do, perhaps in another place. They could table amendments to rectify the anomaly or they could revert to their previous approach, with automatic release at two thirds of the sentence for those serving up to 59 days. Alternatively, they could introduce a different basis, such as a banding system, for calculating early release for those serving fewer than 60 days but more than seven days.
Any such solution would allow consistency with the concept of earned as opposed to automatic release. It would give short-term prisoners the opportunity of early release analogous to long termers; it would give short-term prisoners an incentive to good behaviour; and it would allow relatively easy calculation of release dates, because there would be no need for assessment. In that constructive vein, I ask the Minister to re-examine the issue to provide some consistency.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly look closely at the details of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I should explain to him that the purpose of the amendment in meeting the point that he raised in Committee is that a prisoner serving two months and three days, for example, would be able to earn two days early release. Similarly, a prisoner serving two months and four days would be able to earn three days, and so on. So there would be a tapering effect around the threshold, which would ensure that no one would serve less time in prison than someone sentenced to a shorter period who is ineligible for early release.
My understanding of the present position is that no assessment will be carried out until after two months have elapsed. As a prisoner serving two months or more cannot be released until after the date of his assessment, he cannot in practice be released earlier than a prisoner serving less than two months. That tapers the effect. I shall examine the details of what the hon. Gentleman said and come back to him in due course.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 28, line 43, at end insert—
'( ) No award of early release days under this section shall entitle a prisoner to be released earlier than the day after the day on which the award is made.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 31

PRISONERS HELD ON REMAND

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 29, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
'(4) No award of early release days under this section shall entitle a prisoner to be released earlier than the day after the day on which the award is made.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 32

AMENDMENTS TO 1989 ACT

Amendments made: No. 241, in page 30, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—

'(1) Section 39 of the 1989 Act (rules for the management of prisons) shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2) Subsection (7) shall cease to have effect.
(3) After subsection (12), there shall be added the following subsections-'.

No. 233, in page 30, line 25, leave out from 'prisoner' to the end of line 26 and insert—

'(i) to make such appeals against any such determination as may be prescribed to such person or persons as may be prescribed; and
(ii) following such appeals, to make an appeal to the Secretary of State, who may appoint a person—

(A) to consider any such appeal in such manner as that person thinks fit; and
(B) to recommend to the Secretary of State how it should be disposed of.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 35

FINE DEFAULTERS AND PERSONS CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 33, line 24, at beginning insert '(1)'.

No. 102, in page 33, line 31, at end insert—
'(2) Section 30 of this Act shall apply to children in respect of whom detention has been imposed for fine default or contempt of court as it applies, by virtue of subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 31 of this Act, to persons sentenced to be detained under 44 (detention of children in summary proceedings) or detained for determinate periods under section 208 (detention of children convicted on indictment) of the 1995 Act.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 38

TESTING OF PRISONERS FOR ALCOHOL

Amendment made: No. 256, in page 34, line 28, leave out
'the sample contains any alcohol'
and insert
'he has any alcohol in his body',—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 41

POLICE GRANT

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 38, line 30, after 'grant' insert 'made'.

No. 43, in page 38, line 31, leave out first 'under' and insert 'by virtue of'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 43

RECORD OF EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM EXTERNAL PARTS OF BODY

Amendments made: No. 235, in page 40, line 47, leave out '19, 19A and 20' and insert '19 to 20'.

No. 257, in page 41, line 45, leave out '"print"' and insert
'"prints", in the place where it first occurs,'.

No. 258, in page 42, line 1, after '"prints"' insert
'in the place where it second occurs'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 44

SAMPLES ETC. FROM CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 259, in page 42, line 38, leave out 'sexual'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 260, 261, 44, 262 to 264, 93, 265 to 268, 94, 269, 270, 95, 271, 96 and 272 to 276.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to refer first to amendment No. 274, upon which amendment No. 259 and others in the group are consequential. As hon. Members are aware, clause 44 extends police powers to take DNA samples from all persons who have been convicted of a serious sexual offence and who are still in custody.
We have considered the proposal further and we believe that it is equally important for the police to have that facility available to them in respect of persons who have been convicted of violent offences. People who commit crimes of violence are completely abhorrent to society. In some cases, those offenders are an even greater threat to the community than people who have been convicted of a sexual offence.
It is our duty to try to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to protect members of the public from that type of menace. We must ensure, therefore, that the police have as much assistance as possible to help them prevent and detect such crimes. We see the proposal as a step nearer to helping them do just that.
Violent offenders frequently leave traces of human matter at the scenes of their crimes and the analysis of that matter can lead to the detection of those crimes. It would therefore be helpful to the police to be able to take samples from violent offenders, and we propose to allow them to do so.
Incidentally, I had a sample taken from me by the police as an example of how it was done. It is a perfectly acceptable procedure, although I got the impression that not everyone would have volunteered for it because of the strong hand of the police officer concerned.
Other amendments in the group extend the list of qualifying offences and in so doing address some proposals made in Committee that I was able to accept in principle.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 260, in page 42, line 40, leave out 'sexual'.

No. 261, in page 42, line 41, after 'imprisonment' insert
'in respect of that offence'.

No. 44, in page 43, line 11, after 'so' insert 'taken or'.

No. 262, in page 43, line 19, leave out 'sexual'.

No. 263, in page 43, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 26 and insert—

'"relevant offence" means any relevant sexual offence or any relevant violent offence:
"relevant sexual offence" means any of the following offences-'.

No. 264, in page 43, line 27, leave out '(i)' and insert '(a)'.

No. 93, in page 43, line 27, at end insert—
'(b) clandestine injury to women;'.

No. 265, in page 43, line 28, leave out (ii)' and insert '(c)'

No. 266, in page 43, line 29, leave out '(iii)' and insert '(d)'.

No. 267, in page 43, line 30, leave out '(iv)' and insert '(e)'.

No. 268, in page 43, line 31, leave out '(v)' and insert '(f)'.

No. 94, in page 43, line 32, leave out 'towards a child'.

No. 269, in page 43, line 33, leave out '(vi)' and insert '(g)'.

No. 270, in page 43, line 34, leave out '(vii)' and insert '(h)'.

No. 95, in page 43, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.

No. 271, in page 43, line 38, leave out from beginning to offence' and insert—
';and
(i) any'.

No. 96, in page 43, line 45, at end insert—

'(iia) section 106 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (protection of mentally handicapped females);
(iib) section 107 of that Act (protection of patients);'.

No. 272, in page 44, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 and insert—

( ) section 7 of that Act (procuring);
( ) section 8 of that Act (abduction and unlawful detention of women and girls);
( ) section 9 of that Act (permitting use of premises for unlawful sexual intercourse);
( ) section 10 of that Act (liability of parents etc in respect of offences against girls under 16 years);
( ) section 11(1)(b) of that Act (soliciting for immoral purpose);'.

No. 273, in page 44, line 17, leave out '13(5)' and insert '13(5)(b) and (c)'.

No. 274, in page 44, line 18, after 'offences);' insert—
'"relevant violent offence" means any of the following offences—

(a) murder or culpable homicide;
(b) uttering a threat to the life of another person;
(c) perverting the course of justice in connection with an offence of murder;
(d) fire raising;
(e) assault;


(f) reckless conduct causing actual injury;
(g) abduction; and
(h) any offence which consists of a contravention of any of the following statutory provisions—

(i) sections 2 (causing explosion likely to endanger life) or 3 (attempting to cause such an explosion) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883;
(ii) section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (cruelty to children);
(iii) sections 16 (possession of firearm with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury), 17 (use of firearm to resist arrest) or 18 (possession of firearm for purpose of committing an offence listed in Schedule 2) of the Firearms Act 1968;
(iv) section 6 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 (taking or sending child out of the United Kingdom);'.

No. 275, in page 44, line 20, leave out 'sexual'.

No. 276, in page 44, line 28, at end insert—
'(5) In this section—

(a) any reference to a relevant offence includes a reference to any attempt, conspiracy or incitement to commit such an offence; and
(b) any reference to—

(i) a relevant sexual offence mentioned in paragraph (i); or
(ii) a relevant violent offence mentioned in paragraph (h),

of the definition of those expressions in subsection (4) above includes a reference to aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of such an offence.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 45

CRIMINAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 45, line 1, after '(b)' insert
'subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 46 to 52.

No. 160, in page 46, leave out lines 36 to 47.

Government amendments Nos. 53 to 59.

No. 161, in page 48, line 37, after 'shall', insert
'refer the matter to the Law Society of Scotland and upon receiving the Law Society's ruling that the solicitor's name should be removed from the Register, it shall.'.

Government amendments Nos. 60 to 69.

No. 152, in clause 46, page 50, line 44, leave out 'require' and insert 'offer the opportunity to'.

Government amendment No. 70.

No. 153, in page 51, line 1, leave out 'requiring' and insert 'offering to'.

No. 154, in page 51, line 2, leave out 'to use' and insert 'the opportunity to instruct'.

Government amendments Nos. 242, 71 to 74 and 243.

No. 158, in clause 49, page 52, line 41, leave out 'The Board may', and insert
'Where a sheriff is satisfied, by evidence on oath given on behalf of the Board by a person authorised by the Board for that purpose, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that, circumstances specified in section 35B(1)(a), (b) or (c) arise he may authorise the Board to.'.

Government amendment No. 75.

No. 155, in page 52, line 42, leave out 'wholly or partly' and insert 'only'.

No. 157, in page 53, line 13, after 'documents', insert
'relating only to the provision of criminal legal assistance'.

Government amendments Nos. 76 and 77.

No. 159, in page 55, line 25, at end add—
'(3A) Where the Board has referred a matter to the Law Society or any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) above it may withhold payment of any fees due to him in respect of such work, pending the outcome of the investigation by the body or bodies to which the matter has been referred.'.

No. 156, in page 55 leave out lines 26 to 33.

Government amendment No. 78.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Government amendments in this group affect the part of the Bill relating to criminal legal aid and implementing improvements suggested in Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). They cover the registration of solicitors, a pilot scheme for public defenders, the code of practice, the involvement of the Law Society and other matters.

Mr. Wallace: I should like to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. This part of the Bill opens up some important issues concerning the relationship between the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland, and the circumstances in which additional powers are being given to the Scottish Legal Aid Board without sufficient case having been made to justify the need for those powers.
Amendment No. 160 would delete the provision that relates to the Scottish Legal Aid Board's code of practice, which governs those who provide criminal legal aid assistance in Scotland. The code of practice should not include provisions concerning the conduct of defence work. It is inimical to our system of justice for a state body to be able to dictate to defence lawyers, who should be independent, how they should conduct relations with the prosecution.
The Law Society of Scotland is the statutory regulator of solicitors and, since its inception, it has set standards of conduct in its rules and regulations for those who enrol as solicitors to follow. If the rules are broken or complaints are made, the Law Society of Scotland investigates and, if the complaints are substantiated, prosecutions may be brought before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal.
The Scottish Legal Aid Board is not a professional regulator: it is a non-departmental Government body. It is mixing two concepts that do not mix well to give a Government-appointed body the power to lay down codes of practice that could affect the way in which solicitors


are able to defend their clients. Clause 45 provides that the board could regulate
the manner in which a solicitor should conduct a case and represent his client, including … the passage of timeous and accurate information to the client … the frequency of meetings … the giving of advice to the client as to the consequences of any decision made … the taking of such precognitions as may be necessary … the conduct of relations with the prosecution.
That goes to the heart of the relationship between a client and his professional adviser. I do not doubt that the parameters were set with good intentions, perhaps to prevent slipshod service, but the Law Society of Scotland can already do that.
Dingwall sheriff court is currently being clogged up with the cases of people protesting against the payment of tolls on the Skye bridge. Many fine legal points have been raised, appeals have been made to the Court of Session, and Government policy has been challenged effectively. It would not be in the interests of justice that a code of conduct for solicitors defending people charged with the non-payment of tolls should be determined by a Government-appointed body. That is a potential conflict of interest.
Clause 45 also provides that the Scottish Legal Aid Board could remove the name of a solicitor who did not comply with the code. Amendment No. 161 would ensure that the matter was referred to the Law Society of Scotland, which is the appropriate body to rule on the removal of names from the register. After referral, and if the Law Society agreed, the board could then remove the name. The amendment would clarify that what is effectively a disciplinary action should be taken by the Law Society and not left solely to the board.
Clause 49 would give further powers to the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Amendment No. 158 would require judicial authority for certain actions and activities of members of the board. I declare an interest as parliamentary adviser to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. The institute is concerned that the provisions are too wide. In particular, it is concerned that information might be sought by officials of the board without proper judicial authority.
It is necessary in some cases for the police to be given powers to obtain information, but almost exclusively those powers are sought under judicial authority. The Bill would give powers to the Scottish Legal Aid Board, which—as far as I am aware—has no proper training in how police powers might be used, to seek information without judicial authority. Such powers are not even given to the police.
I draw a parallel with the Finance Act 1994. The Treasury sought to give similar powers to the officers of the Inland Revenue. The attempt was strongly opposed on several grounds, including the unacceptably wide powers, the possibility that they could be misused by an over-zealous officer and the need to strike a balance between exposing bad practitioners and protecting the innocent.
The powers in the Bill go too far, without sufficient judicial discretion, and could allow an over-zealous official of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to go on a fishing expedition on an unfounded allegation or on a hunch. That is not acceptable and does not strike the proper balance. In any case, the House has been given no evidence that a serious problem exists that has to be addressed by such sweeping powers.
Amendments Nos. 155 and 157 are important and technical amendments which relate to the requirement to produce documents under the powers. Amendment No. 155 would ensure that only documents relating to criminal legal aid cases could be recovered. Clause 49 would allow SLAB officials to seek documents that did not relate to the application for criminal legal aid and in which the board had no interest.
As the clause stands, the powers would allow the officials to obtain documents that related to other, civil matters which had no connection with the criminal case, but which were part of one file in a solicitor's office. Again, that power goes to the heart of the relationship between client and solicitor, and should be outwith the scope of the Bill. I ask the Minister to address the point that the powers would allow a wider discretion to request documents than even he might think necessary.
Clause 49 states:
The power under this section to require production of information and documents includes power … to require any person, who is a present or past partner or employee of any such solicitor or firm and who appears to the Board or one of its officers to have any information or documents, to produce them".
No qualification whatever is included. At least proposed section 35A(1) includes the qualification that the information and documents should relate
wholly or partly to the provision of criminal legal assistance.
I sincerely hope that the lack of a qualification is a drafting error and, if so, I offer the Minister the opportunity to accept amendment No. 157 to limit the power to obtain documents.
Amendments Nos. 159 and 156 would delete the current provision that would allow the suspension of all payments to a solicitor who might be guilty of a criminal offence. Amendment No. 159 would allow the suspension of payments to the solicitor only in respect of work related to the offence.
The reason behind that is that the power of the board should not be to suspend solicitors from legal aid entirely pending the outcome of a complaint because such a suspension can proceed only on suspicion and without the benefit of any judicial hearing. I believe that that is contrary to natural justice. Suspending a solicitor from earning a large part of his or her livelihood without any judicial process cannot in any way be seen as fair; it flies in the face of the presumption of innocence.
The Bill makes inadequate provisions to ensure that the client is protected in such circumstances. What would happen not only to the client concerned but to other clients of a solicitor if he or she were suspended? We believe that a right of retention of payment of fees claimed from the fund is reasonable. Amendments Nos. 159 and 156 would allow that objective to be achieved without going into much more principled and procedural objections.
I know that the amendments are wide-ranging, but they all seek to ensure that any power given to the Scottish Legal Aid Board is properly accountable and defined, and does not overstep the mark or duplicate work that ought in the first place to be done by the Law Society of Scotland. I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Opposition's amendments on legal aid go too far in seeking to curtail the powers to be conferred on the board by part V.


Many of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) were explored in great detail in Committee, so I shall give an overall summary of the view that the Government have taken.
The code of practice must deal with the manner in which a solicitor should conduct a case and represent his client. We consider that an essential area. It is for the Scottish Legal Aid Board to monitor compliance with the code and decide who is to be included on the register. There are provisions for appeal on the merits of the decision to safeguard those affected by such decisions. I must therefore resist amendments Nos. 160 and 161.
We have made substantial changes to clause 46, but cannot concede amendments Nos. 152 to 154. They would prevent the board from ensuring that directly employed solicitors have an adequate throughput of cases. If we are to report to the House within three years on the pilot scheme, it is essential to ensure an adequate work load for the solicitors from the outset.
Amendments Nos. 155 to 159 seek to restrict the powers of the board to obtain information and documents to support a full investigation where there are grounds for suspicion, and in the last resort to suspend a solicitor from providing criminal legal assistance. Those powers are, however, an important safeguard for the public from potential fraud and the use of legal aid. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to withdraw the amendments.
The hon. Member referred to the proposed section 35A(4), and asked whether there was a drafting error. The powers to acquire information from past partners are conditioned by the purposes for which information may be required under the proposed section, which are made clear by amendment No. 157. The overall view of members of the Committee was that the powers were necessary. I therefore commend them to the House.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Unusually for me, I must say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister did not give a wholly adequate reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on the powers of entry. Such powers have been described as iniquitous by bodies such as the Glasgow Bar Association. One can of course argue that it comes at the question from a particular angle, but I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend has an opportunity to reconsider what he has said.
From listening to the hon. Gentleman, I certainly felt that, at the very least, he deserved a detailed reply to his important points. [Interruption.] I can tell the Whips that I shall not detain the House for very long. I think that I am entitled to a couple of minutes of the House's time, having served on the Committee.
I should like to put two questions to my right hon. and learned Friend. I accept that, under the circumstances, he may want to write to me rather than detain the House.
First, how will the pilot scheme to which he has referred work? My understanding is that a proportion of accused persons within the jurisdiction of the court covered by the public defender will be directed to the public defender. Although that could work in various

ways, I do not think that the public have been informed of the details. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can assure the House that, if he is not going to inform people of the details in this debate—that may not be the will of the House—he will find a method of doing so.
Secondly, how will the fixed payment system work in practice? There are two or three possible ways in which it could work, but—again—I understand that they have not been made public. I would wholly accept my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance that he will make the matter public as soon as possible to those who are especially interested in the details if he does not want to detain the House tonight.

Mr. McFall: I shall be brief, because clauses 45 to 49 were well covered in Committee.
The Minister knows that the official Opposition are very much behind his public defenders system pilot scheme. I remind him that he must make adequate resources available for the scheme to ensure that it works properly. The best information must be available, especially in the light of the rising legal aid budget. We are interested not only in value for money but in access to justice for many people. We consider that the pilot scheme is extremely important, and we want the Government to support it as much as possible.
I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 152, which concerns a matter that we debated in Committee. As he knows, the Law Society of Scotland, which has very successfully lobbied the Government, was concerned about freedom of choice. Amendment No. 152 would ensure that clients have freedom of choice in whether they instruct solicitors employed by the Scottish Legal Aid Board or private practitioners. The Law Society of Scotland believes that such a choice is worth preserving and protecting. It reminds the Government of their obligations, especially in relation to article 63 of the European convention on human rights, which states:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights …
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance to be given it free when the interest of justices could be in breach of the European Convention.
I remind the Minister of comments made by the Law Society and others, and seek his response.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should confirm, to correct the point that I made in haste a moment ago, that the drafting error relates to amendment No. 75, not amendment No. 157.
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I say to him, and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that it would not be possible for the board's officials to go on a fishing expedition. Before obtaining a warrant, they must convince a sheriff of the grounds specified in the proposed section 35B(1).

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is, of course, right to say that a shrieval warrant will be necessary to obtain powers of entry to premises to investigate. The point that I was making concerned the fact that no prior


judicial authority will be needed to make a requirement of solicitors. He will note that a failure to respond to such a requirement can lead to conviction. The question that the Minister must address is why judicial authority is required for the board to enter premises to investigate, but a similar judicial authority is not required where the board issues a requirement for information.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall examine that point and write to the hon. Gentleman. I shall also thoroughly examine the way in which the pilot schemes will operate and write to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood on that point.
The method of directing counsel to the public defender is under consideration. The arrangements will be announced when the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Scottish Office have resolved the details, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in due course.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 45, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'only' in line 8.

No. 47, in page 45, line 10, leave out '(b)' and insert
', subject to subsection (3A) below,'.

No. 48, in page 45, line 12, at end insert—
'(3A) A solicitor employed by the Board under section 28A of this Act shall require to be registered, and the entry relating to his name on the Register shall include a note that he is so employed: but the Board shall not be regarded as a firm for the purposes of this section, and shall not itself require to be registered.'.

No. 49, in page 45, line 17, at end insert—
'( ) Before making any decisions as to the matters mentioned in subsection (4) above the Board shall—

(a) send to the Law Society and to such other persons and bodies as it considers appropriate a draft of its proposals in that regard, inviting their comments on those proposals within such period, being not less than 8 weeks from the date on which the draft is sent, as it may specify: and
(b) consider any such comments timeously received by it.

but, where it amends those proposals in the light of any such comments, it shall not be required to re-intimate the amended proposals to any of those who were invited to comment.'

No. 50, in page 45, leave out from line 41 to line 10 on page 46 and insert—
'(10) Where the Board decides to refuse an application it shall forthwith intimate that decision to the applicant, and shall as soon as practicable thereafter send him or them, by recorded delivery, a written note of its reasons.
(11) An applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Board to refuse registration may, within 21 days of the receipt of the notification of the Board's reasons under subsection (10) above, appeal to the Court of Session against that decision.
(12) An appeal under subsection (11) above may be on questions of both fact and law and the court, after hearing such evidence and representations as it considers appropriate, may make such order as it thinks fit.'.

No. 51, in page 46, line 18, leave out
', other than solicitors employed by the Board by virtue of section 28A of this Act,'.

No. 52, in page 46, line 30, at end insert 'and professional ethics'.

No. 53, in page 47, line 9, leave out from '(ii)' to 'the' in line 11.

No. 54, in page 47, line 14, at end insert 'and professional ethics'.

No. 55, in page 47, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
'(1A) The code may make different provision in relation to firms and solicitors including, in relation to solicitors employed by the Board by virtue of section 28A of this Act, different provision to reflect the fact that they are so employed.

No. 56, in page 47, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—
'(2) The Board shall—

(a) send a copy of the draft code prepared by it under subsection (1) above to the Law Society and to such other persons and bodies as it considers appropriate, inviting their comments on the draft within such period, being not less than 8 weeks from the date on which the draft is sent, as it may specify: and
(b) consider any such comments timeously received by it,

but, where it amends the draft code in the light of any such comments, it shall not be required to re-intimate the amended code to any of those who were invited to comment.
( ) After carrying out the consultation mentioned in subsection (2) above the Board shall submit the draft code to the Secretary of State for his approval.'.

No. 57, in page 48, line 17, leave out 'is not' and insert 'may not be'.

No. 58, in page 48, line 32, leave out 'is no longer' and insert 'are not'.

No. 59, in page 48, line 36, leave out 'no longer' and insert 'not'.

No. 60, in page 49, line 8, leave out
', or a solicitor employed by the Board by virtue of section 28A of this Act'.

No. 61, in page 49, line 13, leave out from 'Register' to 'but' in line 17 and insert
'it shall forthwith intimate that removal to the firm or solicitor concerned, and shall as soon as practicable thereafter send them or him, by recorded delivery, a written note of its reasons for its decision.
(8) A firm or solicitor aggrieved by a decision of the Board under subsection (4) above may, within 21 days of the receipt of the notification under subsection (7) above, appeal to the Court of Session against that decision.
(9) An appeal under subsection (8) above may be on questions of both fact and law and the court, after hearing such evidence and representations as it considers appropriate, may make such order as it thinks fit;'.

No. 62, in page 49, leave out lines 20 to 25.

No. 63, in page 49, line 30, leave out 'is not, or'.

No. 64, in page 49, leave out from line 33 to line 4 on page 50 and insert—
'(2) Subsections (6) to (9) of section 25D of this Act apply in relation to a solicitor whose name is removed from the Register under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a solicitor whose name is removed from the Register under subsection (4) of that section.'.

No. 65, in page 50, line 12, leave out 'but' and insert 'and'.

No. 66, in page 50, line 13, leave out 'need not' and insert 'shall'.

No. 67, in page 50, line 16, leave out 'April' and insert 'December'—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 46

EMPLOYMENT OF SOLICITORS IN RELATION TO CRIMINAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 50, line 25, after 'State' insert
'may, in accordance with the provisions of this section, provide for the carrying out of a study into the feasibility of providing criminal legal assistance by means of solicitors employed directly by the Board, and, accordingly,'.

No. 69, in page 50, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) The Board shall not, by virtue of this section, employ more solicitors than are necessary to enable it to maintain at all times a working staff of such number of full-time or part-time solicitors as will equal six full-time solicitors; and any solicitor employed by the Board on a casual or temporary basis to fill a vacancy left by the absence on leave or because of illness of a permanent appointee shall require to be a registered solicitor.
( ) The Secretary of State may authorise the Board to make such preparations for the feasibility study as will enable it to begin the study as soon as regulations under subsection (1) above come into force; and such preparations may relate to the purchase and equipping of heritable and moveable property and the employment of staff including, but only for the purposes of training, solicitors.'.

No. 70, in page 50, line 46, leave out 'use' and insert 'instruct'.

No. 242, in page 51, line 2, leave out 'use' and insert 'instruct'.

No. 71, in page 51, line 10, leave out '28(2)' and insert '28'.

No. 72, in page 51, line 10, leave out
', and section 28(1) of this Act shall,'.

No. 73, in page 51, line 12, at end insert—
'(8) Within three years of the date on which regulations made under subsection (1) above first come into effect, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report on the results of the feasibility study.
(9) This section, and the provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (10) below, shall cease to have effect five years after the date on which regulations made under subsection (1) above first come into effect.
(10) The provisions referred to in subsection (9) above are—

(a) in section 4, subsection (2)(aa) and (3)(ab);
(b) in section 11—

(i) in subsection (1) the words "or (3)"; and
(ii) subsections (3) and (4);

(c) in section 12(2), the words ";but does not apply to the salary payable to a solicitor employed by the Board by virtue of section 28A of this Act.";
(d) section 25A(3A);
(e) in section 25B(1A), the words from "including" to the end; and
(f) in section 31(1A), paragraph (c).

(11) Prior to the date on which this section ceases to have effect the Board shall make arrangements for the transfer to solicitors or, where registration is in force, registered solicitors not employed by it of any work currently being undertaken by way of criminal legal assistance by solicitors employed by it by virtue of this section.
(12) On the date when this section ceases to have effect the Board shall remove from the Register the name of any solicitor employed by it by virtue of this section who is not otherwise entitled to be registered.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 48

CONTRACTS FOR THE PROVISION OF CRIMINAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE

Amendments made: No. 74, in page 52, line 11, leave out
', or a solicitor employed by the Board by virtue of section 28A of this Act'.

No. 243, in page 52, line 18, leave out 'use' and insert 'instruct'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 49

POWER OF INVESTIGATION OF SCOTTISH LEGAL AID BOARD

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 52, line 41, after 'may' insert
', for the purpose of determining whether—

(a) a solicitor or any employee of him or of his firm may be committing a criminal offence in connection with criminal legal assistance; or
(b) a solicitor may be seeking, in relation to criminal legal assistance, to recover from the Fund money to which he is not entitled, as, for example, by performing unnecessary work; or
(c) a registered firm or solicitor is or may not be complying with the code,'.

No. 76, in page 53, line 44, at end insert—
'(8) No information or documents obtained by the Board by virtue of this section or section 35B of this Act shall be used by it or by any of its employees for any purpose other than the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(9) Section 34 of this Act applies in relation to a contravention of subsection (8) above as it applies in relation to a contravention of subsection (1) of that section.'.

No. 77, in page 54, line 1, leave out
'or a Justice of the Peace'.

No. 78, in page 55, line 44, leave out
'or a solicitor employed by the Board by virtue of section 28A of this Act'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 54

CONFISCATION OF ALCOHOL FROM PERSONS UNDER 18

Mr. McFall: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 57, line 42, after 'shall', insert
'where there is no byelaw in force prohibiting the public consumption of alcohol'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also No. 141, in page 57, line 45, at end add
'and where there is a byelaw in force prohibiting the public consumption of alcohol it shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale for a person not so to comply with a requirement made under subsection (1) or (2) above'.

Mr. McFall: A similar amendment was debated in Committee. The clause allows a police officer to take liquor from an under-18-year-old and to take that individual's name and address; and to take liquor from over-18s if the officer believes that they are supplying under-18s with liquor. A new crime is created, of failing to comply with a police officer's request to surrender the


liquor or of not providing a name and address. That would incur a fine of not more than level 2 on the standard scale, which is £500.
The amendment is designed to increase the penalty for failing to meet police requirements when a local authority byelaw exists prohibiting consumption. We are concerned here not with the drinking but with the possession of the liquor and the failure to comply with the police request. We want to send out a message to those involved that what they are doing is unacceptable, and that we take the matter seriously.
The official Opposition are extremely concerned about the issue. We have co-operated with the Government in the matter of byelaws. The amendment would ensure that there was a penalty regardless of whether a byelaw was in place. We urge the Government to take the matter seriously.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The amendments replicate amendments that we considered in Committee. I said at that time that I would consider further the level of the penalty. I recall that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that it would be absurd if someone were fined £2,500 for not giving his name and address. I agree in this context, and I believe that we should not go down the road of increasing penalties merely for the sake of presentation. Penalties should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Having reconsidered the matter, we are still of the view that anything above a level 2 or £500 maximum fine for the offence would be disproportionate.

Mr. Gallie: Has my right hon. and learned Friend any guidance on why Opposition Members are taking this line? I hear repeatedly of their dismay that people are sent to prison for not paying fines. A fine of £2,500 would be well beyond the means of the majority of people who would be affected by the clause, and it would be nonsense unless they were sent to prison for non-payment.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would not be appropriate to get into the business of sentence-gazumping proposals. For a variety of reasons, we think that the amendments are unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 57

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 98, in page 59, leave out line 1.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 58

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 104, in page 59, line 25, leave out from '(5)' to end of line 26 and insert
'of this Act shall extend to England and Wales, and section 33(4) of this Act shall extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

New schedule 2

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EARLY RELEASE

1. (1) In this Schedule—

"existing provisions" means the provisions relating to the detention or release of persons which are in force immediately prior to the date upon which Chapter 1 of Part III of this Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Chapter") comes into force, and where those provisions are amended or repealed by this Act or any other enactment, that amendment or repeal shall apply for the purposes of those provisions and this Schedule only if expressly stated to do so;
"new provisions" means the Chapter.
"new offence" means an offence (including default in paying a fine and contempt of court) committed after the new provisions come into force;
"old offence" means an offence (including default in paying a fine and contempt of court) committed before the new provisions come into force;
"new sentence" means a sentence passed in respect of a new offence;
"old sentence" means a sentence passed in respect of an old offence; and
"sentence" includes a period of imprisonment imposed for default in paying a fine or for contempt of court.

(2) In subparagraph (1) above, the definitions of new offence, new sentence, old offence and old sentence shall have effect notwithstanding that conviction and sentence may occur after the Chapter comes into force.

(3) In relation to default in paying a fine, the date on which sentence is passed shall be taken to be, in relation to imprisonment imposed—

(a) under section 214(2) or 216 of the 1995 Act, the date on which the court imposes imprisonment; and
(b) under section 214(4) of the 1995 Act, the date on which the defaulter is committed to prison.

2. Where, by virtue of the provisions of this Schedule, a prisoner is treated as serving—

(a) a new sentence, the new provisions will apply in respect of him;
(b) an old sentence, the existing provisions will apply in respect of him,

in both cases subject to any specific provision made in this Schedule.

3. For the purposes of this Schedule, where additional days have been awarded to, or days of remission have been forfeited by, a prisoner serving an old sentence, the period which he is required to serve in respect of that sentence shall be computed without regard to those days, and he shall serve those days—

(a) after that period has come to an end; and
(b) before starting to serve any new sentence of imprisonment which is to run consecutively to that old sentence.

4. Where any combination of old and new sentences is to run, either consecutively or concurrently, in relation to a prisoner, any supervised release order imposed under any of those sentences shall begin on the date when he is released; and where there is more than one such order he shall be subject to whichever of them is the longer or, as the case may be, the longest.

5. Where a single sentence is passed in respect of a number of offences committed on different days, for the purposes of this Schedule the sentence shall be deemed to have been passed in respect of the offence or offences committed on the latest of those days.

6. Subject to paragraph 8 below, where a new sentence is to run consecutively to an old sentence, the new sentence shall begin—

(a) where the old sentence was or is for less than four years, at the expiry of one half of that sentence; and
(b) subject to paragraph 7 below, where the old sentence was or is for four years or more, at the expiry of two thirds of that sentence

7. Where, in a case to which paragraph 6(b) above applies, the Parole Board have, prior to the passing of the new sentence, recommended that the prisoner be released on licence on a date—

(a) earlier than the expiry of two thirds of that sentence; and
(b) later than the date on which the new sentence is passed,

the new sentence shall begin on such date as the Secretary of State may, after considering any further recommendation of the Parole Board, determine, being a date not later than the expiry of two thirds of the sentence.

8. Where a new sentence is to run consecutively to an old sentence and the prisoner concerned is in prison—

(a) because he has been recalled to prison by the Secretary of State, the new sentence shall begin, where he is recalled—

(i) after the expiry of one half and before the expiry of two thirds of the old sentence, at the expiry of two thirds of that sentence;
(ii) after the expiry of two thirds of the old sentence, at the expiry of the old sentence;
(iii) in either of the cases mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above, and the Parole Board has directed his release under section 17(4) of the 1993 Act or has recommended his release under section 28(5) of the 1989 Act, on the date on which he would, by virtue of that direction or recommendation and but for the new sentence, have been released;

(b) as a result of an order made under section 16 of the 1993 Act (commission of offence by released prisoner), the new sentence shall begin on the date on which the return period determined by that order expires;
(c) both because he has been recalled by the Secretary of State and returned as a result of an order made under section 16 of the 1993 Act, the new sentence shall begin on the expiry of whichever of the recall period and the order period ends later.

9. Where any combination of old and new sentences is to run consecutively in relation to a prisoner and—

(a) after the expiry of any supervised release order such as is mentioned in paragraph 4 above; or
(b) where he is not subject to any such supervised release order, on his release,

there remains outstanding part of any licence period in respect of an old sentence, he shall, in accordance with the existing provisions, be subject to that licence for that part of that period.

10. Where any combination of old and new sentences is to run consecutively in relation to a prisoner and—

(a) the last of those sentences is a new sentence, he shall, in addition to any supervised release order or licence period, be subject to the new provisions in relation to that new sentence; and
(b) the last of those sentences is an old sentence, he shall, in addition to any supervised release order or licence period, be subject to the existing provisions in relation to that old sentence.

11. In calculating a licence period for the purposes of paragraphs 9 and 10 above any period less than three months shall be disregarded.

12. Where a prisoner serving an old sentence of four years or more—

(a) has been released on licence; and
(b) receives a new sentence,


before the expiry of that old sentence, he shall begin to serve the new sentence immediately on its being passed or on such other date as the court may specify.

13. Where an old sentence is to run consecutively to a new sentence, the prisoner concerned shall begin to serve the old sentence on the date when he would otherwise have been released from the new sentence.

14. Where any combination of old and new sentences is to run concurrently, in relation to a prisoner, he shall be treated as if he is serving whichever of them will, as at the date on which the latest of them is passed, give rise to the later or, as the case may be, latest release date and, for the purposes of this paragraph, "release date" means—

(a) in the case of an old sentence—

(i) one half of a sentence of less than four years; and
(ii) two thirds of a sentence of four years or more; and

(b) in the case of a new sentence, the whole term.

15. If, by virtue of paragraph 14 above, the prisoner is to be treated as serving an old sentence, and—

(a) that sentence is either quashed or reduced to a period shorter than the concurrent new sentence on appeal; or
(b) a new sentence to which he is subject is increased on appeal to a period longer than the concurrent old sentence,

the prisoner concerned shall, as at the date when he begins to be treated as serving the new sentence, be deemed to have been awarded as many early release days as possible in relation to the period during which he was treated as serving the old sentence, (under deduction of any additional days which may have been awarded to him, or days of remission which may have been forfeited by him, during that period).

16.—(1) This paragraph applies where a prisoner who is being held on remand in respect of both an old offence and a new offence is, in consequence of the same act or omission—

(a) awarded additional days in respect of any prospective old sentence which may be imposed upon him; and
(b) is made subject to an order by which he forfeits early release days, in respect of any prospective new sentence which may be imposed upon him.

(2) Where the prisoner receives—

(a) only an old sentence, he is liable to the additional days mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a) above;
(b) only a new sentence, he is liable only to forfeit the early release days mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b) above.

(3) Where the prisoner receives both an old and a new sentence which are to run—

(a) consecutively, he is liable to the additional days, if the longer or, as the case may be, longest sentence is an old sentence, or to the forfeiture of the early release days, if the longer or, as the case may be longest, sentence is a new sentence;
(b) concurrently, he is liable either to the additional days or, as the case may be, to the forfeiture of the early release days, depending on whether the sentence is, in accordance with paragraph 14 above, to be treated as an old or, as the case may be, a new sentence.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 79, in page 60, line 40, at end insert—
'( ) In section 60 (effect of hospital orders)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a)—

(i) after the word "officer" there shall be inserted the words ", an officer on the staff of the hospital specified in the order"; and


(ii) For the words "28" there shall be substituted the word "7";

(b) in subsection (4), for the words "28" there shall be substituted the word "7".'.

No. 277, in page 61, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'notify' and insert
'they shall, if that unit was not so specified,'.

No. 126, in page 61, line 46, at end insert—
'( ) In section 77 (transfers to England and Wales), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(5A) Where a patient removed under this section was immediately before his removal liable to be detained under this Act by virtue of a hospital direction made by a court in Scotland, he shall be treated as if any sentence of imprisonment passed at the time at which the hospital direction was made had been imposed by a court in England and Wales.".
( ) In section 80 (transfers to Northern Ireland), after subsection (6), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6A) Where a patient removed under this section was immediately before his removal liable to be detained under this Act by virtue of a hospital direction made by a court in Scotland, he shall be treated as if any sentence of imprisonment passed at the time at which the hospital direction was made had been imposed by a court in Northern Ireland.

No. 278, in page 62, line 33, after 'order' insert 'or a hospital direction'.

No. 279, in page 62, line 34, after '62(1A)' insert 'or 62A(1A)'.

No. 121, in page 66, leave out lines 26 and 27.

No. 236, in page 67, line 30, leave out 'the order' and insert 'an order or direction'.

No. 237, in page 67, line 50, leave out 'under' and insert 'by virtue of'.

No. 238, in page 68, leave out line 14 and insert—
'(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) the words from the beginning to "209(1) of the 1995 Act" shall cease to have effect; and
(ii) after the words "prison in Scotland" there shall be inserted the words "under Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 in an unrestricted transfer within the meaning of that Schedule"; and'.

No. 99, in page 70, leave out line 13 and insert—
'(2) In section 44 (detention of children in summary proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (4), the words ", subject to subsection (6) below.";
(b) subsections (6) to (9); and
(c) in subsection (10), the words "or (8)".

shall cease to have effect.

No. 80, in page 70, line 17, at end insert—
'( ) in subsection (3), for the words "28" there shall be substituted the word "7";'.

No. 81, in page 70, line 19, after "time";' insert—

'( ) in subsection (5), for the words "28" there shall be substituted the word "7";
( ) after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(5A) Subsections (1) and (4) of section 60 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 shall apply to an interim hospital order as they apply to a hospital order.";'.

No. 82, in page 70, line 22, at end insert—
'( ) In section 58 (hospital orders)—

(a) in subsection (4), for the words "28" there shall be substituted the word "7"; and

(b) in subsection (9), for the words "28" there shall be substituted the word "7".'.

No. 83, in page 70, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) In section 65 (prevention of delay), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) An application under subsection (3) shall not be made at any time when an appeal made with leave under section 74(1) of this Act has not been disposed of by the High Court.".
( ) In section 74(4) (disposal of appeals in connection with preliminary diets)—

(a) the word "and" after paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect; and
(b) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following words "and;
(c) may on cause shown extend the period mentioned in section 65(1) of this Act,".

( ) In section 81(6) (list of jurors where trial does not take place)—

(a) the word ", signed" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) for the words "85(1) and (2)" there shall be substituted the words "85(2)".

( ) In section 83 (transfer of sheriff court solemn proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words "transfer the case to a sheriff court" there shall be substituted the words adjourn the trial and transfer it to a sitting of a sheriff court, appointed as mentioned in section 66(1) of this Act.";
(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) before the word "make" there shall be inserted the words "adjourn the trial and"; and
(ii) for the word "case" there shall be substituted the word "trial as mentioned in subsection (1) above"; and

(c) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

(3) Where a warrant to cite any person to attend a sitting of the sheriff court has been issued by the sheriff clerk under section 66(1) of this Act and the trial has been adjourned and transferred by an order under subsection (2) above, the warrant shall have effect as if the trial diet had originally been fixed for the court, and the date of the sitting of that court, to which the trial is so transferred.".'.

No, 84, in page 70, line 45, after 'citation)' insert
'—

(a) in subsection (3)—

(i) the words "signed by the prosecutor and" shall cease to have effect;
(ii) in paragraph (a), after the word "accused," there shall be inserted the words "signed by the prosecutor and"; and
(iii) in paragraph (b), after the word "sent" there shall be inserted the words "by or on behalf of the prosecutor"; and

(b)',

No. 85, in page 70, line 48, leave out
'signed by the accused's solicitor and sent'
and insert
'sent by the accused's solicitor'.

No. 119, in page 71, line 32, at end insert—
'( ) In section 228(1) (probation orders), after the word "below" there shall be inserted the words "and without prejudice to section 245CC of this Act".


( ) In section 232 (failure to comply with requirements of probation order), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) Where the court intends to sentence an offender under subsection (2)(b) above, and the offender is by virtue of section 245CC of this Act subject to a restriction of liberty order, it shall, before sentencing the offender under that paragraph, revoke the restriction of liberty order.".

No. 86, in page 71, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) In section 234A (non-harassment orders), subsection (5) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 2

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO EARLY RELEASE

Amendment made: No. 103, in page 72, leave out from line 9 to end of line 27 on page 73.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 3

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 74, line 3, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 2(2), the word "and".'.

No. 240, in page 74, line 14, column 3, leave out 'subsections (2) and (3)' and insert
'in subsection (2), the words from the beginning to "209(1) of the 1995 Act"'.

No. 100, in page 74, line 54, column 3 after "44," insert
'in subsection (4), the words ", subject to subsection (6) below,",'.

No. 101, in page 74, line 55, column 3 at end insert
'and in subsection (10), the words "or (8)".'.

No. 88, in page 75, line 5, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 74(4), the word "and" after paragraph (a).



In section 81(6), the word ", signed".



In section 85(1), the words from "but" to the end.'.

No. 89, in page 75, line 10, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 140(3).



In section 141(3), the words "signed by the prosecutor and".'.

No. 90, in page 75, line 17, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 234A, subsection (5).'.

—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Connarty: I did not make a speech earlier, but only an intervention, because I had been on the Committee and I knew that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) could handle any points well.
What is left to us to debate now is what would in Burns's time have been called a reggle o'banes—a raggle of bones—loosely strung together to appeal to certain prejudices in the dark side of human nature and to try to appease them by getting tough. My concern is that the Bill will create more problems in society than it solves.
I intend not to rehearse matters that have gone before, but to deal with new ones. First, I should like to thank the Minister for his kind remarks when he said that he had considered my plea against the electronic tagging of children. He did not accept the amendment to that effect, but said that he would consider the possibility that the pilot scheme would be only for adults. I hope that that proves to be the case should this science fiction nightmare ever be put into operation in Scotland.
The main thrust of the Bill is to increase sentences. People will spend more time in prison. The Government's well-argued point, made in 1993, that to serve half a sentence in prison and to carry the rest of it into the public domain as a suspended sentence, to prove that one could be a good citizen, has been cast aside.
The main result, as we know, will be increased overcrowding. The main unplanned consequence of that, which has been predicted by everyone who has considered the criminal justice system over the past 100 years, will be to increase tension in prisons and stress for prison staff. I predict that prison unrest and violence will increase.
The effects will not be confined to prisons, because the public are well aware—[Interruption.] I have a speech to make, and I intend to make it. I have sat here all day waiting to make this speech, and I intend to make it fully. I have considered my position today, and I want to express it on Third Reading, because it relates to important matters that concern the whole Bill rather than any particular part of it. If I need to detain hon. Members until 10 o'clock to make my point, I will. No one of any party can tell me to curtail my speeches merely to play some game.
I believe that the public will feel the impact of such unrest. That is why I speak against Third Reading. The public in my constituency feel the impact of every single shiver of unrest in the Polmont young offenders institution. When there is unrest in a prison, as there has been at Full Sutton, at Glenochil and other prisons, and when there are suicides in places such as Cornton Vale, as we discussed at some length on Report, there is an impact on everyone in society. People are worried that the society in which they live is breaking down and that one of the major institutions designed to keep the checks and balances—the Prison Service—is failing to perform its duty properly.
There will also be a long-term impact on the behaviour of ex-prisoners who have served five sixths of their sentence. They will not turn out better citizens: they will turn out better institutionalised criminals, and they will probably learn much greater criminal habits. As we have seen from reports on prisons, prisoners are increasingly learning drug habits. That comes from the feeling in


prison that the sentence will never come to an end, and that one might as well conform to the institution, with all its aberrations and anomic behaviour.
We know that five new prisons are planned by the Government at a cost of £102 million as a consequence of the Bill, using the private finance initiative. I am sure that society has a feeling of betrayal when that £102 million could be doing something useful in hospitals, the national health service, education or elsewhere in Scotland.
One of the early consequences of the Bill will be overcrowding. I have had a long discussion, at its instigation, with members of the Scottish Prison Officers Association. They have given me some interesting facts about the institution in my constituency as an example. I will use it as an example to suggest to the Minister that, as a consequence of his Bill, the problems there will be repeated throughout the prison system in Scotland.
The Minister will be aware that the situation at Cornton has been artificially produced by the Government's closure of Castle Huntly young offenders institution and moved the prisoners from there mainly to Polmont, with a proposed onward move to a wing of Cornton Vale prison. We have debated Cornton Vale at great length. The Minister said in reply to one of my points that it was on hold at the moment. There are now more than 500 prisoners in Polmont. I am told that that is 25 per cent. overcrowding. The Bill will have the same consequence for prisons throughout Scotland.
What are the consequences of 25 per cent. overcrowding for Polmont and other prisons? I am told that in, that young offenders institution, the slightly insecure wing, where trusted prisoners were kept, has had to be emptied and the D category prisoners all moved into secure wings. The reason for that was that the behaviour of other prisoners and the unrest in the rest of the prison impacted on the trusted prisoners, and a large cache of knives and ski masks was found in the insecure section They had been brought in by trusted prisoners and by other means to feed the unrest in the main prison, where faction fighting is growing.
I am told that Saughton prison wants to get rid of its untried prisoners and dump them in Polmont young offenders institution, thereby exacerbating the problem. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that that will not happen. That is the problem that will be caused by the Bill. Prisoners will stack up and prisoners will end up in very overcrowded prisons. That must be considered.
I am also told that the Bill which is about to be passed will impact on an environment in which there are serious concerns about staffing. I have some examples of the results of that in Scottish prisons. In one wing, one supervisor and six members of staff have to look after 105 prisoners on leisure regime, when they are outside. That is frightening. I asked why. I am told that there are now serious problems of non-cover for staff absence.
I was given a table showing an analysis of staffing levels. The excess hours worked in 1994–95 were the equivalent of 16 extra members of staff. That was forced down to 12 in 1995–96 and is now down to only five and a half, because people are not covered. Rotas are not covered when people go off ill. That is what happens when there is an attempt to reduce the staffing level and

the bill for prison staffing at the same time as forcing more prisoners into the institution, which is what the Bill will do.
There is also concern about the inability to prevent drugs and weapons coming into the prison system. That is due to a lack of investment at the interface between visitors and prisoners. The SPOA members told me that there were not enough sniffer dogs, metal detectors or other equipment to scrutinise the throughput of the vast numbers of visitors to an overcrowded prison. I am sure that that will be reflected in prisons throughout Scotland, as well as Polmont, and even more so as a consequence of the Bill.
What is the result of overcrowding? We have the problem of a growing challenge to the regime of the prisons. The examples given to me from Polmont were frightening. I said earlier that ski masks and weapons had been smuggled in by supposedly trusted prisoners. Internecine warfare is running throughout the halls in the prison. We had a major riot about a year and a half ago in Polmont. We had a mini riot in November 1996. It was about prisoners trying to become a regime within a regime. I am told that people from one city or section of the Scottish population try to rule all those from other counties. The prison officers said that they were worried that they could not control any major outbreak of prison violence.
There have been five assaults on officers in Polmont in 1996–97. An officer has been hit over the head with a chair. One has been attacked in a cell. One has had serious damage to his groin after being kicked. Another has had broken ribs in four separate incidents.
A prisoner was up in court on an assault charge today, and will probably have been disposed of. He is a fairly well known character in prison legend. When he was sentenced, he jumped over the barrier in the sheriff court and pulled the sheriffs wig off. The Minister may recall him The prisoner is up for assaulting a member of staff. The custodial regime is beginning to break down because of overcrowding. That will be the consequence throughout Scotland of the Bill, and it seriously worries me.
I am told that, on escort duty, staff can have up to six prisoners, with only one driver and one member of staff to supervise them. There was a recent assault on a woman officer. The prisoner assaulted the officer in the back of the van, then jumped through and attacked the driver. The driver was forced to draw to the side of the road. Luckily, an off-duty policeman and some others came to the rescue, or we could have had a very serious incident on our hands.
It is all down to trying to save money and force more people into prisons and to the philosophy that people who break the law should be slammed up without considering the logic of why we are doing it or making any attempt to change the behaviour of people when they are in prison. That is plainly the philosophy behind the Bill.
I am told by the SPOA that too many minor offenders are in prison. We discussed the detail of cases of people in Cornton who were in prison for fine default. Polmont is said to be 25 per cent. overcrowded. I am told that, if the fine defaulters were taken out, the prison population would be reduced by 25 per cent. immediately. That is something that we must consider. If the fine was the proper disposal at the beginning, people should not end


up taking up room in prison, if prisons are to do anything about changing the behaviour of inmates and provide proper custodial care.
The main point for me is that preventing the prison system from breaking down does not rely on the business approach that has come in to the prison service since it became an agency, but in adopting a more caring, educational and reconstructive approach than is evident in the Bill. This is a silly Bill to introduce at this time. It is a piece of egocentric chest puffing to show that people can be tough on the criminal. Society wants a reduction in crime. If the Government merely slam people up and do not consider the need to reduce criminal behaviour, society will be in a worse position than when we began.
I am seriously concerned by what I have heard from the SPOA about what is happening in the prisons closest to my home and in my constituency. The SPOA tells me that it is a malaise that is spreading throughout the Scottish prisons. In a recent report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) referred, the chief inspector of prisons said that there were major problems in Saughton prison. I do not understand why the Government have not taken time to think this out, hold the Bill back if they believe it is important, and put it in their manifesto. Then people would see whether we want better prisons that do more about not sending people back to criminal behaviour and less about tough-man approaches and longer sentences. I hope the Government will suffer in respect of the Bill in the Lords.

Mr. George Robertson: I shall be brief. I am amazed that, on this important Bill, the Minister can speak at length on amendments on Report, but cannot manage to rise to his feet to speak at the start of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Where is the Secretary of State?

Mr. Robertson: I shall get to the question of the boss in a moment. He is the senior counsel and we have been left with the junior counsel.
I wish to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for his work on the Front Bench in Committee. The Bill is now remarkably different from the one that received a Second Reading, and much of that is down to my hon. Friend and his work with colleagues on the Committee. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty). They have done a good job on the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked a relevant and pertinent question—where is the Secretary of State for Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman was here last Tuesday night, when we had the first part of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill saga. He trailed what he was going to say when he opened the Third Reading debate—the taunts, gibes and

gimmicks that he was going to unveil in that speech—but he was denied the opportunity to deliver the speech because the Whips were incapable of keeping hon. Members in the House beyond 10 o'clock, so here we are tonight.
The problem is that we know the answer to the question: this evening, the Secretary of State for Scotland is at a drinks party at Dover house, up on Whitehall. That might explain his earlier agitation when the debate did not come to an end as he had expected. People in Scotland will note carefully the right hon. Gentleman's priorities—a drinks party with the press, rather than conducting this major piece of legislation through the House this evening. The Bill is the flagship of his parliamentary year—his last parliamentary year—yet he is not on the battlefield.
The right hon. Gentleman leaves behind the Minister of State, whose brother hit the headlines this week. I want to put on record my gratitude for the good sense of at least one member of the Hamilton family. As the Member of Parliament for Hamilton, let me publicly congratulate the Duke of Hamilton on his remarks and his criticism of Her Majesty's Government.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be unaware that one has to do a little bit more than rely on those who do not have a vote.

Mr. Robertson: I am perfectly capable of relying on those who do have the vote. Underlining the fact that his brother is an hereditary peer will not get the Minister off the hook of the duke's criticisms and his relevant and pertinent attacks on the Conservative Government. The duke told me that he is not a professional duke, but a professional engineer. Why cannot the Minister answer his arguments instead of slagging him off for being a member of the upper House?
Two weeks ago, I met residents in the Fairhill area of my constituency. I brought them together with representatives of the local police force, the social work department, Scottish Homes and South Lanarkshire council's housing department. They are afraid to go out at night; they are imprisoned in their houses during the day; and they are afflicted by anti-social neighbours. As a Member of Parliament, I ask myself how I can explain to them how the Bill will help them—but of course it will not.
Will the Bill allow action to be taken against the anti-social neighbours who make residents' lives hell by throwing stones, making threats and harassing them? No, of course it will not. Is there anything in the Bill that will prevent the use of scanners by local hooligans, who spot the police even as they leave the local police station and so avoid them? There is no such action in the Bill.
It is important to note that the absent Secretary of State himself described Conservative Scotland in the magazine Flourish, which is published by the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Glasgow. Just after he was appointed, 18 months ago, in September 1995, he described that part of the world as it was after 17 years of Conservative government. He said:
When parents dare not let their children go out to play; when senior citizens who have given a lifetime of service to the community are forced to spend their sunset years—which should be among the most rewarding in their lives—as prisoners in their own home; then we have reached a point where action must be taken.


That is a description by a Conservative Cabinet Minister of this country—of my country, of Scotland—after 17 years of Conservative government. It is a vivid, bleak and depressing description, and it is exactly right. If the Conservatives cannot get it right in 18 years of government, how can anybody expect them to get it right now? [Interruption.]

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Here he is.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister is pointing to the fact that his boss has now arrived back from the party. We are all privileged to see the Secretary of State here this evening, although he will sit silent for the rest of the debate.
There is nothing in the Bill to help my constituents. All we have had are two White Papers, a Bill, hours of debate in Committee and enough leaked headlines and public relations stunts to launch a Duchess of York television commercial. That is hardly any consolation to those who live in the conditions described by the Secretary of State. There are no proposals to deal with the anti-social neighbours who imprison those golden-age pensioners in their own homes. Within a few months there will be a general election, and when we win that election—with or without the support of the Duke of Hamilton—we will take action against anti-social neighbours; we will make it easier for the agencies to share information about the behaviour of some tenants; and we will look at tenancy agreements to ensure that proper and decent behaviour towards others is a clear obligation of tenants and residents.
Since the Secretary of State has taken over in St. Andrew's house, he has branded the policies of his predecessor as irrelevant, dishonest and a failure. Only a few years after being introduced by the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), those policies have been swept away by the Bill in a lurch from ineffective action to inane action. The Bill was a rush job, cobbled together in St. Andrew's house without any regard to the opinion of anyone who works in the criminal justice system.
The criminal justice system of Scotland, which is distinct and differs in many ways from the system prevailing south of the border, is too important to be treated in such a cavalier manner. That treatment has to be examined, as does the panoply of penalties available to the courts, to see whether it is sufficient or whether it should be augmented or changed. Most important, if we are to change our criminal justice system and make fundamental alterations to the system to which we in Scotland have grown accustomed and which we believe to be better than systems in other parts of the world, let the changes be based on consensus and agreement, not on the ideological fixation and publicity seeking of a transient politician.
We shall not block the Bill's Third Reading, because, first, although concern about several aspects remains, many elements of the Bill are vital for tackling crime; and, secondly, because the Government have either accepted Labour amendments and new clauses or given assurances as to the meaning of specific clauses. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State may have enjoyed the party from which he has just returned, but a bit of decent silence would be in order As he has not graced us with his

presence or his arguments, perhaps he should sit back—maybe for the first time in his political career—and listen to some of the things that are said about him and to him.
For example, we have supported additional targeting of supervision on those deemed to be of greatest risk to society, new measures on the registration of convicted sex offenders, and new powers for the police to take DNA samples from a person in legal custody who has been convicted of "relevant sexual offences". In the latter case, the Government accepted a Labour proposal to extend the list of "relevant sexual offences" to include rape, clandestine injury to women and any lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour towards adults or children.
Similarly, we support proposals in the Bill to create a new offence of seeking employment with children for those convicted of a sexual offence against children, as well as increases in the maximum penalty for sex with under-age girls. On the latter point, Ministers have accepted a Labour amendment to increase the maximum penalty, not only to five years but to 10 years. We believe that the law must be tough on those involved in certain offences.
We have supported the Government's proposals to reform the legal aid system by using pilot schemes to benchmark costs. We support tougher powers to tackle under-age drinking. We sought to toughen the penalties for under-age drinking in alcohol-free zones, but were defeated in Committee by the Government majority.
We remain concerned about the potential impact of the Government's sentencing policy and, in effect, their removal of judicial discretion, but—this is where there is a major difference between the Bill on Second Reading and the Bill in its present form—we welcome Government assurances, secured in Committee, that the courts will have wide discretion to define the exceptional circumstances in which the court will be allowed to award less than a mandatory life or minimum sentence, including both the circumstance of the offence and the circumstances of the accused.
Ministers have given assurances—which we have welcomed—that they will introduce new clauses in the House of Lords to protect mentally disordered witnesses in court. The Bill is not finished. It is still to be considered by the House of Lords, and we shall watch carefully what happens there.
The Bill was designed purely to gain votes in an election which itself, by its timing, may finish it off. That would be the final irony—and a fitting epitaph for this gimmicky, limited and crude electioneering piece of legislation.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I detect impatience in the House about the progress of this Bill. Those who find the fact that we are detaining them irksome should reflect on the following: many of us need not be here discussing the domestic affairs of Scotland, and if they would only grant us devolved powers to a Parliament in Edinburgh, they could dine much earlier and we might fashion a better piece of legislation.
When the White Paper was debated in the Scottish Grand Committee, the Government took offence at the robustness of my criticism, especially regarding the imposition of automatic sentences, but also regarding the


rejection of the Sutherland committee recommendation that there should be instituted in Scotland a body with responsibility for dealing with miscarriages of justice, independent of the existing judicial system. The latter defect in the Bill remains. No such body has been set up, and it is notable that Lord Ross—the recently retired Lord Justice-Clerk—made that absence one of his principal criticisms of the Government in the interviews that he gave following his retirement. In the absence of that provision, I believe the Bill to be substantially flawed.
Another element—perhaps of commission, not omission—which surrounds these proceedings, equally directs us to the judgment that the Bill is flawed. I refer to the imposition in certain circumstances of automatic sentences. These constitute a substantial and unprecedented innovation in the law of Scotland. Although the statutory provision which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) just mentioned—the use of the expression "exceptional circumstances"—may go some way to palliate the consequences of the imposition of provisions to provide for automatic sentences, it does not deal with a fundamental question of principle which lies at the centre of the Bill.
For those reasons, I and my colleagues are not prepared to accept the Bill. We will divide the House on Third Reading when the appropriate moment comes, because we believe that the Bill is so flawed in principle that it does not deserve the approval of the House.
The innovation which I mentioned—automatic sentences—dilutes judicial discretion in Scotland in a way that has never before been seen. It is noteworthy that, of several Scottish High Court judges who have commented on the Bill, none has been found to support the principle on which the Government have advanced this part of the legislation. That is inevitable, because what is now proposed is wrong in principle and will result in injustice in practice.
What is proposed will certainly result in a far higher number of contested cases in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. There will be absolutely no incentive for any accused person to plead guilty if the consequence of doing so is that he or she will attract an automatic sentence. That means that many complainers—many victims—who might otherwise have been spared the ordeal of giving evidence in serious cases, especially where sexual misconduct is alleged, will have to go into the witness box to give evidence.
Faced with the draconian consequences of the Bill, juries, who will be aware of the likely consequences because they will almost certainly be told of them by those conducting the defence of an accused person, will seek to find any excuse for acquitting or for returning a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge, to avoid triggering the automatic provisions. Juries will find ways to acquit. In addition, prosecutors in sympathetic cases will charge the accused person with a crime of less seriousness than is appropriate in the circumstances so as to avoid the risk that the automatic provisions will be triggered.
Earlier this week, I had the privilege of listening to the speech of Lord Bingham in another place. If hon. Members want a point of reference for what is intellectually sustainable, what is founded in justice and

what reflects the reality of the disposal of serious criminal cases, they can do no better than have regard to the terms of that speech.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed: it is wrong in principle. For that reason, it should not command the support of the House, and we will invite the House to pass its verdict on it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) raised some serious points in relation to Polmont. I shall examine them and write to him in due course.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was one of the most desperately weak speeches that I have ever heard. He sought to justify abstention and, no doubt on the orders of Islington, will sit on his hands because he knows that the Bill protects the people of Scotland and will be an extremely popular law and order measure.
Only the Liberal Democrats have the courage to oppose the Bill, which they know will do a great deal for law and order and will be tough on crime. I challenge the hon. Member for Falkirk, East to vote with them, if his speech reflects his sincere belief.
Conservative Members have no dilemma about giving much stronger protections to the people of our country. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 20.

Division No. 62]
[8.20 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Aitken, Jonathan
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Burt, Alistair


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butcher, John


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Atkins, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Churchill, Mr


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Congdon, David


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Biffen, John
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Cran, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowis, John
Curry, David


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Brandreth, Gyles
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Bright, Sir Graham
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brooke, Peter
Devlin, Tim


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dorrell, Stephen






Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Elletson, Harold
King, Tom


Emery, Sir Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Faber, David
Knox, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Kynoch, George


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Norman


Fishburn, Dudley
Lang, Ian


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Legg, Barry


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward


Fowler, Sir Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lidington, David


Freeman, Roger
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


French, Douglas
Lord, Michael


Fry, Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Gale, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gallie, Phil
McCrea, Rev William


Gardiner, Sir George
MacGregor, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew


Garnier, Edward
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Madel, Sir David


Goodlad, Alastair
Maitland, Lady Olga


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Malone, Gerald


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Gummer, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hague, William
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hannam, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Hargreaves, Andrew
Molyneaux, Sir James


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Nick
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Newton, Tony


Heald, Oliver
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Michael
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Horam, John
Page, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Paice, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Patten, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Porter, David


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Portillo, Michael





Powell, William (Corby)
Sykes, John


Rathbone, Tim
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Redwood, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Renton, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Richards, Rod
Temple-Morris, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rowe, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Trend, Michael


Ryder, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, William


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Walden, George


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waller, Gary


Shersby, Sir Michael
Ward, John


Sims, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Watts, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Wells, Bowen


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wheeler, Sir John


Soames, Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Speed, Sir Keith
Whittingdale, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wilkinson, John


Spink, Dr Robert
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Wilshire, David


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Stanley, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Sir George


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Mr. Matthew Carrington


Sumberg, David
and


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Sebastian Coe.




NOES


Alton, David
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Ashdown, Paddy
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Beith, A J
Rendel, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Steel, Sir David


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Thurnham, Peter


Harvey, Nick
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Paul Tyler.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the previous debate, I referred to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980, which banned alcohol at sports grounds and on coaches in Scotland. At the time, I was howled down and told that the measure was introduced by a Labour Member before the Conservatives took office. That is not true: the measure was introduced by this Government and Opposition Members voted against it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Orders of the Day — Police Grant (England and Wales)

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1997–98 (HC 208), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
I am pleased to open the debate on the funding of the police service. The settlement demonstrates the Government's commitment to providing the police with the resources to carry on the magnificent job that they do every day of the year, 24 hours a day. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, we have the best police service in the world. The police deserve our support and we shall back them every inch of the way.
Our determination to back the police is evidenced by the extra money that we have made available to them over the years. Expenditure on the police has increased from just over £1 billion to more than £7 billion since 1979. I am proud to say that spending has therefore more than doubled in real terms. Our support for the police is made through the police grant and the local authority finance system. Tonight, we are debating the police grant report and we shall debate the English and Welsh local government finance reports in the next few days.
The increases in resources have been reflected in increased police numbers. Since 1978–79, overall police numbers have increased by about 16,000. More officers are being put back on the beat to address the public's demand for high-visibility policing. The number of constables has increased by 2,360 since the last general election, making a total of more than 98,000. Between 1983 and 1996, more than 9,100 officers were released for other work by bringing in civilians.
Our support is paying off. Recorded crime in the 12 months to June 1996 was down by 10 per cent. on the rate three years ago. That is a fall of more than half a million offences—the biggest continuous fall over three years since records were first kept in 1857. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) is smiling because she welcomes that significant decrease. Those successes have not happened by accident: they are a tribute to the hard work and dedication of police men and women up and down the country. They demonstrate that our strategy of supporting the police by giving them the resources they need is the correct one.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my hon. Friend recall that, when Labour was last in power, the police were undermanned and underpaid, and so demoralised that officers were leaving in droves?

Miss Widdecombe: I do recall mat. Our policies have had a significant impact.

Mr. Alun Michael: Will the hon. Lady have the grace to acknowledge that average police numbers rose faster, year by year, during the life of the last Labour Government than under this Government? That hardly bears out her claim, which is not justified.

Miss Widdecombe: My claim is justified because police numbers have risen by more than 16,000 since

the Conservatives came to power. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to debate that point in later exchanges.
In total, £7·3 billion will be available for policing next year, including £205 million for capital expenditure. This is a good settlement for the police: it shows our commitment to fighting crime and maintaining law and order, and the priority that we give to those aims when we are keeping careful control of public spending to ensure the wise use of taxpayers' resources.
Capping limits for police authorities will be confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment next week, but they are set to be fixed at 3·2 per cent. That measure, coupled with the additional funding that is being provided outside the cap, will deliver an increase in police authority spending power of £247 million. In setting the allocations for individual police authorities in the report, we have listened to the views of those on the ground—the chief constables, police authority representatives and people who make day-to-day decisions about how valuable resources are spent. They have told us that stability in allocations is their overriding concern. They do not want to see their funding see-sawing from year to year: they want to be able to plan ahead.
Therefore, we have applied two additional rules to the funding formula—rules 1 and 3 in the report. They will ensure that every force receives a 2 per cent. increase in the total police grant, standard spending assessment and SSA reduction grant if they receive it, in addition to a 3 per cent. minimum increase for provincial forces this year and an average increase of 4·2 per cent. the year before. That is evidence of our firm and consistent support for the police. Those increases do not include money for the extra constables promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall return to that issue later.
We have also proposed measures that would enable police authorities outside London to increase their spending by 3·2 per cent. if they wished to do so. When we add to that the money for new officers that was promised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the potential increase becomes 3.7 per cent.

Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Minister explain to the House why the Merseyside police service has suffered a reduction of more than 400 in the number of officers on the beat in the past few years?

Miss Widdecombe: The way in which individual police forces decide to allocate their resources and the priorities that they attach to their spending patterns are matters for the chief constables.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: My hon. Friend may be pleased to learn that I recently had a meeting with the chief constable of the South Wales police, who reassured me that all the extra money made available by the Government will be spent on extra policing.

Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to hear that, and I welcome the chief constable's statement. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to the House's attention.
Some people have pointed out that if police authorities budget up to their capping limit, higher council tax bills will result. We should keep that claim in perspective. If authorities spend right up to their limit, the average band D council tax payer will pay just £7 a year more. Overall, central Government currently funds between 80 per cent. and 85 per cent. of police expenditure. It must be right that council tax payers should bear a slightly higher proportion of the burden of funding the police.
If police authorities were to budget up to the proposed cap, that would still mean a change of under 1 per cent. in the balance of funding. We do not intend to tell police authorities how to set their precept for the police: that is not our role. It is for each authority to decide at what level the precept should be set and it will naturally want to balance its force's need to maintain current levels of service with the position of council tax payers.
I have already reminded hon. Members of the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to provide funding for an additional 5,000 police officers over three years. Forces will receive the first slice of that funding, some £20 million, this year. Next year, forces will receive a share of funding for those officers taken on this year. They will also receive a further £40 million in additional money. Additional rule 2 in the police grant report is applied to distribute that funding between the forces.
That extra £40 million is sufficient to pay for 2,000 officers, but again we are not telling chief officers how to spend their money. It is for them to decide how the funding should be allocated. I hope that, when considering how to spend it, they will listen to the public, who always make it clear—

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Lady recall that the promise made by the Prime Minister before the last general election to increase police numbers by 1,000 was not surrounded by caveats? It was a direct promise, and it was not delivered. Why has the Prime Minister's promise—which also was not surrounded by caveats—of 5,000 extra police not been delivered?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that we now have a record number of constables. That is clear proof of our commitment.
I was saying before I was not very intelligently interrupted that, when the police consider how to spend the money, we hope that they will listen to the public, who always make it clear that they want more officers on the beat, which demonstrates—

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I would like to finish my sentence this time, having given way in the middle of it last time. That demonstrates the high regard in which the police are held.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman still want to interrupt?

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. These issues will come up in debate, but I think that she should

acknowledge that there are 500 fewer police officers now than there were in March 1992, when the Prime Minister made the pledge, which, as I said, was not fulfilled.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that that very slight fall, against the overall rise, is accounted for by the rise in the number of constables and the flatter management structure, which has resulted in a slight shift in the figures.
We will support total capital expenditure of £205 million in 1997–98, and we will honour our existing commitments. All funding for specific police building projects is being maintained, which is what the Association of Chief Police Officers wanted. Some projects will be deferred, but it is open to individual forces to explore private finance initiative opportunities if they do not want to defer.
There has been a reduction in capital provision. That reflects the scope for greater efficiency and value for money. In particular, it recognises the opportunities open to police authorities to benefit from the private finance initiative in running their capital programmes.
Increasingly, the police service is taking advantage of PFI. The fundamental objective of PFI is to secure the best possible use of capital resources at best value for the public sector. The private sector is using its skills and expertise to help deliver better deals for the police.
We now have 14 pilot PFI projects with an estimated capital value of £130 million in all. For example, Derbyshire police are in the final stages of agreeing a contract with the private sector to design, build, finance and operate a replacement police station at Ilkeston. Derbyshire and others are forging ahead with their pathfinder projects. Those projects are yet another example of police forces' enthusiasm for looking at new and more effective ways to provide services to the public. They will also be a valuable source of advice on best practice for future schemes.
I am convinced that the private finance initiative has a future in the police service as in other parts of the public sector The private finance initiative means that risks best borne by the private sector do not fall on the client, and it brings new and innovative solutions. Above all, PFI means value for money.
The Metropolitan police's spending power will increase to more than £1.7 billion in 1997–98. That is an increase of 3·4 per cent. over 1996–97, including the funding for extra officers. We recognise that they have a unique role because of their national and capital city functions, so they will receive a special payment amounting to £130 million to cover that work.
The bulk of police funding is allocated according to the needs-based formula that was introduced in 1995–96. We made a number of refinements last year, in response to concerns expressed by the police and others. This year we have again listened to the police in refining the formula for 1997–98.
In 1996–97, 40 per cent. of funding was allocated on the basis of establishment or police staffing figures from 1994. For 1997–98, that proportion will reduce to 30 per cent. The establishment figure is increasingly out of date. The need for such a component continues to recede, but it provides useful continuity with previous funding regimes, so it stays for next year at least, albeit at a reduced level.
We have looked long and hard at the pensions element. We recognise that pension costs have risen, so we have increased the proportion of funding distributed under that component from 12· per cent. to 12·9 per cent. The model used by the Government Actuary's Department to project forces' relative pensions expenditure has been overhauled.
I know that police forces went to a lot of trouble to provide information on pensioners and serving officers, and I am grateful to them for that. The result is more accurate information and a fairer distribution of resources.

Ms Eagle: The hon. Lady will know that the pension component of the formula presents particular difficulties in Merseyside. Is she absolutely certain that her Department has taken account of all the extra retirements and the efficiency savings that the police force has made by removing part of the management structure, to which she referred earlier? That has put even more pressure on this area of expenditure.

Miss Widdecombe: We believe that we have taken into account all relevant factors in reaching our conclusions. I accept the hon. Lady's point. The pensions problem is a difficult and major one, and although it has an impact on all forces, it affects certain forces in particular.
Other parts of the formula have also benefited from improved data. The way in which the money is divided is based on what we know about how the police spend their time. The latest information on police activity and incidents has been reflected in the formula.
Finally, we have acknowledged that patrol is a crucial element of police work. The patrol component of the formula is now shown separately. It is now clear for all to see that a significant proportion of police funding is allocated on the basis of this important area of work.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend accept that her statement shows the Government's firm commitment to the policing of this country? Does she share my perhaps unrealistic hope that the broadcast media will report her statement fairly, and will not do what they did last time, which was to seek out the police authority with the smallest increase and mislead the public into thinking that that was the general situation?

Miss Widdecombe: Not having the powers of a clairvoyant, I do not know what the media will do. I have learnt not to hope for entirely fair treatment, and again on this occasion I will not risk putting money on receiving fair treatment from them. However, I join my hon. Friend in hoping that the media will indeed reflect accurately the considerable support that is clearly demonstrated by what I have been saying.
I was talking about the work on the formula. That work is not yet finished; we will continue to look at the funding formula this year to see whether further refinements are required. Representatives of the police service and police authorities will be fully involved, and will therefore be able to make points such as the one made by the hon. Member for Wallasey in relation to Merseyside.
I have set out a very satisfactory settlement for the police service, and a fair and equitable distribution of the available funds between the 43 forces in England and Wales. We have ensured stability in allocation. All forces outside London can receive at least 3·2 per cent. more money. On top of that, we have delivered the next chunk of money to meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's promise of funds to provide 5,000 extra constables. We have refined the formula, which now uses more accurate information than ever before. The establishment factor continues to shrink, and rising pension costs have been recognised.
The report gives us, and the people, a properly and fairly funded police service. It enables the police to go into battle with the terrorist, the burglar and the mugger armed with the resources that are needed to carry out that work. I commend the report to the House.

Mr. Alun Michael: I pay tribute to the ingenuity of Ministers. Every effort was made to ensure that the House was not misled—that must have been very difficult, because the facts relating to police finance are now becoming clear. Far from giving the police an extra 3·7 per cent. this year, total Government support will rise by less than 2 per cent.—1·98 per cent., to be precise.
The Minister said that the settlement demonstrated the Government's commitment to the police. She was misinformed. That is as absurd as her claim about police numbers. She suggested that the cut in capital funds gave scope for efficiency; I suggest that the motivation was not to increase efficiency, but to save money. It certainly lessens the scope for efficiency if the police cannot spend money on expensive new technology that may help them to tackle crime by reducing the burden of bureaucratic work and getting more policemen out on the streets.
The Government will not spend money on increasing police numbers; they will make local people pay through the council tax. I am not sure whether to call that institutional theft or another Tory tax rise, but I ask the House to take careful note of the exact words that have been used. In a Home Office press release issued in November 1996, to which the Home Secretary gave the heading "More resources for the fight against crime", the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated:
My top priority is maintaining law and order and tackling crime.
He says that fairly frequently, but no one believes him. He continued:
Planned spending fully reflects that commitment.
The words were carefully chosen. He added:
More funding for police authorities will allow the police service to continue the fight against criminals and to recruit another 2,000 constables.
Reading those words, one might think that the Home Secretary intended to provide money from the Home Office budget rather than going on a pocket-picking spree.
Another Home Office press release was issued today, in the name of the Minister of State, who is not taking part in tonight's debate. I understand that the Home Secretary has gone abroad to avoid being present for it The Minister of State said:
In a year when we have more bobbies on the beat than ever before. I am delighted that we will be able to give police authorities increased spending power to continue the fight against crime
Hon. Members should note the words "we" and "give"—words used by a Minister who described the settlement as generous. I am not surprised that the Minister who is present has been given the "hospital pass" of being allowed to deal with tonight's debate; I am sure that the other Ministers know that the money is being provided not by the Home Office but by local people.
Having checked all the figures that have been laid before the House, I can assure hon. Members that they do not actually mislead the House. Today's Home Office press release, however, represents an extraordinary attempt to fool the public into believing that the Government are providing extra money for the police, and that the Home Secretary is fulfilling the promise made by the Prime Minister in October 1995 to provide additional money to finance an extra 5,000 police officers. Neither is true, as I shall spell out.

Mr. Ian Bruce: This is a short debate I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is about to come to the kernel of his speech—I am sure that he is—and tell us how much more a Labour Government would give the police. Surely, any other words condemning the Government are sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. Michael: No. I am going straight to the target of the debate, which is the Government's hypocrisy in making a statement that makes it appear that they are giving money to the police, when they are in fact picking the pockets of local people to obtain the sums that are at the bottom of the finance sheet. That is what our debate should be about: that needs to be exposed.
Let me remind the House what the Conservative party promised the British people before the last general election. Page 22 of its manifesto stated:
We are continuing to increase police numbers. There will be 1,000 extra officers this year.
That intention was confirmed by the Home Office annual report, published in March in the run-up to that general election. It stated:
The Government plans to increase police establishments further in 1992–93 by nearly 1,000 police officers.
Once the general election was over, the Conservative party reneged on that promise. I suspect that it was partly because of the constant scrutiny from Opposition Members that Ministers decided, in 1994, to absolve themselves of responsibility for setting the police establishment by devolving decisions to chief constables through the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. When we were debating that legislation, we said we thought that that curious conversion to the devolving of responsibilities might have something to do with an intention to cut police numbers, and we were right.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we did in fact, approve sufficient funds for 1,000 additional officers in 1992–93, that some police

authorities decided that they would not deliver their share of those approved funds and that, none the less, we gave it to them? Will he confirm that, in the event, police strength increased by 845 in that year?

Mr. Michael: I shall come to the numbers in a moment, but it is a fact that, in 1992–93, responsibility for deciding police establishment and police numbers had not been taken away from the Home Office. That happened in the 1994 Act. The Minister cannot evade responsibility on behalf of her colleagues. In fact, police numbers went down during that year.
It is, of course, right for police authorities to be able to consider what is best for their areas, and to agree with the chief constable the balance between spending on equipment and personnel, between police officers and civilians and at each rank. It is pretty obvious that the only reason Ministers were willing to allow subsidiarity is that they believed that it would let them off the hook in reducing police budgets in real terms.
As we predicted, police numbers went down. Before the last election, the annual report projected a total of 129,425 police officers by March 1966. The Home Office has confirmed that on 31 March 1996 the total number of officers was 126,878—more than 2,500 below the number promised. As the Prime Minister promised to fund an extra 5,000 police officers over three financial years, commencing in April 1996, it is pertinent to ask the Minister what the base line is. Is it the number of officers in March 1996 or the number of officers that, in 1992, Ministers promised there would be in 1996? Is it perhaps the number of officers before the last election, plus the 1,000 officers promised then?
That question has not been answered by the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, although it has been asked many times. It would provide an honest starting point if Ministers answered that question: sadly, it would be an academic answer, because the latest Home Office figures show that the total number of police officers in England and Wales in September 1996 was 500 lower than the number in March 1992, immediately before the general election.

Mr. Stephen: On the subject of questions that have not been answered, surely the point put to the hon. Gentleman by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is right: the hon. Gentleman cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that more central Government money must be devoted to the police, but refuse to commit his party to putting any more central Government money in.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have understood the importance of what I am saying. His party went to the 1992 general election promising 1,000 additional police officers and has not delivered that. It is now promising an additional 5,000 police officers, and it is not providing the resources or putting in the money to meet the Prime Minister's promise.
I understand that Conservative Members are practising for opposition. They want to question Ministers and we are prepared to practise answering questions, but, at the moment, it is the Conservative Government's pledges that are under scrutiny. I pledge that we will at least deliver what we promise. The basic point is that, when he spoke


during the general election, the Prime Minister promised an extra 1,000 police officers, and he did not deliver. He is now promising 5,000 additional police officers over a finite period, and he is not delivering the money to meet that requirement.

Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman deludes himself utterly that he is practising for government—I assure him that he is not—perhaps he could give us a foretaste of exactly what his Government will do and answer the question that was aptly put to him. How much more would a Labour Government spend on the police, and has the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) agreed to that spending?

Mr. Michael: I look forward to the first Home Office questions after the general election, when I hope that it will be appropriate for the hon. Lady to ask the questions. She should be more interested in providing a cogent explanation of why she serves in a Government whose Prime Minister promised 1,000 extra police officers and failed to deliver that, and why her settlement today fails to deliver the promise. That is the sort of Prime Minister and Government that we have. That is why it is about time they were swept away.
The practical effect, for instance, in London is that, since the last general election, the number of police officers has fallen by 1,000. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred to Merseyside. Between March 1992 and September 1996, the number of police officers in Merseyside went down by 351. It will lose another 215 by 2001. The people of Wirral, with whom I discussed police issues last week and again a few weeks ago, will not be impressed by that failure to support the police in Merseyside, which is implicit in the Minister's statement today.

Miss Widdecombe: Does not Merseyside still have more police officers per 1,000 head of population than any other force outside London? As money is allocated on the basis of population, is it not also true that the Merseyside population is decreasing and that the number of officers in that force, as in others, is a matter for the chief constable?

Mr. Michael: That is a little essay for the defence, I suppose. Merseyside has considerable crime problems. The police in Merseyside whom I visited a few weeks ago face chronic problems. The people of Wirral to whom I was listening only days ago said that they were unhappy with the lack of resources for the Merseyside police. The settlement makes matters worse for the people of Merseyside.

Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Wirral are extremely unhappy with being forced to pay a 50 per cent. increase in their council tax precept for the police service in the past three years, yet they have many fewer officers than before the increases?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting that local people—this was clear in Wirral—see through what the Government have been up to. Those people recognise that promises are made and not kept, and that

they have to pay more for less because of the way in which the Government have dealt with their finances. My hon. Friend makes a telling point, which must greatly embarrass the Minister.
The Government's record on police numbers is not good. The police have to deal with worse problems because of the huge increase in crime over which the Tories have presided. Violent crime is up by 163 per cent. compared with 1979, crime has doubled and criminals are three times more likely to get away with violent crimes than in 1979 when Labour was in office. The facts about police numbers are clear. Under the Labour Government, the average increase in the number of police officers was more than 700 a year, much greater than under the Conservatives. Since 1989, the increase has been only 127 a year. Under the Labour Government, there was less crime and a greater commitment to policing and the future bodes better for the police and the public than for the past few years.
Let us put all that history behind us and look at what has happened since the Prime Minister made his new promise to fund extra officers. Last year's police grant report included an extra £20 million for the first tranche of additional officers. However, as I said in last year's debate and as is made plain on page 154 of the Home Office annual report, the capital grants allocated to police authorities were reduced by £23 million from the previous year, and that in itself was a reduction of £19 million compared with what was promised on page 126 of the 1995 Home Office annual report. I do not think that Ministers want us to look closely at the figures, but those figures are in documents that were published by the Home Office, and they cannot escape them.
It is fine for Ministers to say that they will provide extra money for police officers, but, if they keep cutting the capital budget every year, how on earth is the force expected to keep up with increased expenditure on more police, uniforms and police cars, not to mention side-handled batons and pepper sprays and all the other innovations that the Home Secretary has announced in press releases in the past couple of years? That is the context in which we look at this year's settlement.
The Home Office issued two press releases giving the joyous news that police grant was up 3·7 per cent. and that total police spending power was up 3·7 per cent. Perhaps the general public and even informed journalists were fooled by that information into thinking that the Government were giving the police an increase of 3·7 per cent. this year. I hope that the representatives of the press who are covering the debate will be fair on the Minister; I am not sure that that will have the desired effect suggested by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), because, if the Government are dealt with fairly, the coverage will be extremely critical.
I am sure that the Home Secretary cannot have harboured such dishonourable intent, but I thought it sensible to seek further clarification in case anyone felt the slightest bit misled. Just before Christmas, I tabled parliamentary questions so that the Home Secretary could clarify the position to the House. His answer appeared in columns 269–70 of the Official Report of Wednesday 15 January 1997: the increase in total Government grants to police authorities was just 2·2 per cent. but there was a flaw in the answer because it did not include the capital grants.
I have today received a list of the capital grants that have been allocated to each police authority and they show why the Home Secretary chose not to include them in his totals. The grants are down again this year to below last year's figure, which in itself was £20 million short.
By my calculations, the real increase in Government support to the police is just £117 million, a rise of less than 2 per cent. Where is the rest of the money that enabled the Home Secretary to claim a 3.7 per cent. increase without in any way misleading the House? The answer in the Official Report of Wednesday 15 January makes it clear that the Government intend to ask local government taxpayers to stump up the cash. The Minister's figures are based on the Government's contribution going up by a miserable 1.8 per cent. and the cash demanded from local authorities going up by an average of 14 per cent.
It is interesting to look at the figures for Kent, where the Government contribution will go up by 2·39 per cent. I am not sure what the citizens of Kent will say when they discover that the Home Secretary is to send them a bill that will increase the burden on council tax by 13·4 per cent. The bill will not come directly from Kent's Members of Parliament, the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe); it will come by the scenic route of the local council tax, but it will have been written by the Conservative Members who represent that area.
The increase in the council tax precept in Merseyside will be 16·9 per cent. At the top end of the scale, and based on the Government's own figures, Cleveland will suffer an 18·5 per cent. increase.

Mr. Stephen: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that the distinction he is attempting to draw between council tax payers and income tax payers is artificial. Council tax payers and income tax payers are substantially the very same people.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should know full well—although I appreciate that he, like the Home Secretary, avoided accountancy and went into law, which is probably just as well—that the Government are saying that they are giving extra money to the police, but that they are not giving Government money to the police They are not providing the money they take from taxpayers to provide the rises. They are saying, "It's not coming out of our sums. We'll take it out of council money instead, and let council tax payers pay for it." They hope that local authorities will be blamed, although the burden will have been placed on local taxpayers because of the Government's decisions.
The hon. Member for Shoreham really must appreciate Ministers' sleight of hand, because there is no doubt that they think the public will believe that local councils are taking the money or that they hope councils will get the blame. The increased financial burden on local authorities, however, has an impact on crime and on the work of the police.
Labour-controlled local authorities want to do more, not less, on crime prevention and public protection. They want to do more, not less, on work with young people to cut youth crime They want to do more, not less, in working with the police and the local community to cut local crime. However, those authorities are being provided

not with more help but with an additional burden by the Government. I am sure that next week's announcement on local authority settlements in England and in Wales will show just how difficult the situation has become.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remind those Labour-controlled local authorities that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made it clear that those spending plans cannot be changed.

Mr. Michael: Yes, indeed. The problems that the Government have given to local authorities are very considerable and clear. As we all realise, an incoming Government will inherit the problems created by the current Government.
Next week, we will hear more about the problems that the Government are offloading on to local government. As I said, the way in which the Government have dealt with police finances will make the situation worse, and they have still not managed to meet the challenge of creating a fair and transparent police funding formula that is dependable over the long term. Ministers recognise the problems posed by increasing pension burdens, but they have not solved them.
This year, the police will not experience a real, bottom-line increase in resources, and far less will they be able to provide for additional police officers. Even without that swingeing 14 per cent. increase in council tax precepts—which is an average, as I have made clear; the burden will be even higher in some places—the total increase is only £247 million, compared with local authorities estimated cost of £371 million for pay increments, rising pension costs, pay and price increases and allowing for efficiency savings to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise.
As with the rest of the Government's approach to law and order, today's settlement fails to deliver what it promises. It fails the police; it shrugs financial responsibility from the Home Office to local authorities; and, above all, it continues with the Government's tradition of failing the public across England and Wales.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I shall keep my speech brief, and plead the case of North Wales police. I should say that, against the background of a tight public spending round, the police settlement has been marginally higher than the settlements for some other services. There are problems, however, particularly in north Wales. Some of the points that I shall make are specific to that area, although some apply to all police forces.
The 3·2 per cent. overall budget increase—before funding for additional officers is provided—is sufficient to fund only the full-year effects of 1996–97 pay rises, in 1997–98, and forecast and pension rises, in 1997–98. That assumes that the police authority will agree to set the maximum precept.
There is insufficient to meet likely price increases in services, energy, fuel and consumables. To maintain current levels of operation, the North Wales police will be forced to fund significant savings from maintenance and support areas. Operational support demands are increasingly sophisticated and expensive. Several


initiatives must be taken to improve the operational safety of officers and the effectiveness of procedures, and each requires a significant investment. They include provision of body armour, measures to improve the armed response to meet growing needs and provision for crime recording and management systems and for the continuing expense of communications. Those developments will have to stand still for the coming couple of years in the North Wales police area.
The reduction in the capital allocation for minor works, vehicles and equipment from £1·33 million to £1·076 million is placing an additional strain on the revenue budget and delaying important developments. Private finance initiative projects are being investigated, although, even if they are successful, they are unlikely to relieve pressure on the capital programme for the next financial year or two.
The damping procedure introduced as additional rule 1 is welcome, as otherwise the funding formula changes would have produced a further reduction in spending power in the North Wales police of about £1·5 million. There is real concern that the protection of additional rule 1 will be removed in the short to medium term. That would require a major reduction in the size of the police force and in its ability to provide the community with the level of policing they expect from provisions announced in the proposal and additional rule 2.
There is no doubt that there will be a reversal in the recent trend of recruiting some additional officers. Despite having recently achieved significant efficiency savings, including a major reduction in supervisory ranks, the force will be forced to consider further staff cuts as a result of the proposed settlement. There appears to be an assumption that a flatter management structure is required, although commanders and managers in the North Wales police are already spread too thinly.
An additional burden is the need to provide legal representation—this burden is unique to the North Wales police area—at the north Wales child abuse inquiry. There will be a cost of £1·6 million over two financial years. That is proving to be a major drain on resources, and in a year of negligible growth there is no option other than to reduce the capacity of services and to delay further some essential developments. The force's reserves of £1 million are, of course, insufficient to absorb anything other than a minor contribution.
The settlement allows for little real growth. The demand for police services and the expectations of the north Wales community are growing at a greater rate than resources are being applied. The announcement that the 1997–98 settlement includes funding for additional police officers has further heightened public expectations.
The reality is that the settlement barely provides for pay and price increases. In addition, the environment in which police officers work has a greater prospect for hostility and violence. Police officers must be given adequate protection. The additional cost of providing body armour, CS spray, the new batons and so on must be provided from the current, rather static budget. That will inevitably mean reduced services.
The growth in pensions, already referred to by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), is being provided at the expense of the operational budget; pensions are being

paid from the settlement. The net cost of police pensions in north Wales is growing at 10 per cent. per annum. As the settlement has been capped at 3·9 per cent. for 1997–98, it has been necessary to reduce operational budgets by £500,000 to compensate. That equates to a reduction of 20 police officers. That situation should not be allowed to carry on indefinitely, or the service to the community will undoubtedly be eroded year on year. A fully funded police pension budget must be provided separately from the operational budget.
The use of a formula as a means of allocation to police forces within the overall police settlement is clearly not working adequately. The majority of forces are now given protection from reduced allocations because of the formula under rule 1. The amount of protection for the North Wales police under this rule for 1997–98 is £733,000. There can be no guarantee that that protection will continue in subsequent years. The formula needs a thorough review as a matter of great urgency. It impacts badly on the North Wales police, but I have no doubt that it impacts on every other police force as well.
In summary—I know that other hon. Members are anxious to speak—1997–98 will be a difficult year for the North Wales police, because of the restricted growth in the budget. The costs of the child inquiry compound that problem. The force has a firm commitment to improving front-line officer numbers and their efficiency and safety, but the necessary funds are not available. There is concern about the long-term consequences of funding changes, particularly if the damping provisions are removed too rapidly. Capital funding has reduced the force to below subsistence level.
This is an urgent call from a responsible, cost-effective police force. It has an excellent record which is second to none. The concerns are about maintaining that excellence. If the Government are serious about crime, they have a golden opportunity to assist the people of north Wales, and my constituency in particular. I hope that they will talk to representatives of the police authority over the coming weeks and that these real concerns will be met with proper, detailed and responsible action on behalf of the people of north Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I was also pleased to hear the cogent and well-informed speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
The not inconsiderable sum of £35,695,797 has been granted to the North Wales police authority. The formula used by the Government to calculate that sum is quite algebraic. Some of the headings include residents in lone parent families, total unemployment figures, long-term unemployment figures and young male unemployment figures, as well as a reference to sparsity. All those factors are good reasons why the North Wales police authority should have a substantial Government grant.
I should like to emphasise strongly that the North Wales police authority has a particular problem currently—the public inquiry on child abuse in north Wales being chaired by Judge Ronald Waterhouse QC. The inquiry is due to continue for more than a year. It is putting serious pressure on the North Wales police authority—so much so that I fear that, if the authority


has to find the substantial sums needed to cope with the challenge of that inquiry, operational provision may be reduced and the financial embarrassment of the police force will be considerable. I make my special plea to the Minister to ask her Department to think again about how it can help the North Wales police authority with the inquiry, which places a heavy burden on it.
I pay my own tribute to the police authority. It is a good authority—its leadership is good and its officers are good. From my experience as a constituency member, there is no doubt in my mind that the force wishes to help the people whom it has the duty to serve. I shall be the first to say that, as a Member of Parliament, I get a good service from it.
North Wales is a far-flung area, stretching from Aberdovey in the south-west to Prestatyn in the north-east, and from Holyhead to Saltney in my constituency. That is a large tract of land. In it there is mountainous and estuarial terrain. There are deeply rural as well as urban areas, and a bilingual police force is required. There are great pressures on budgets, and chief constables and other senior police officers are examining extremely carefully how they might continue the services that they provide—they cannot increase them—given the proposed grant and the fact that the child abuse inquiry will continue for longer than a year.
There have recently been closures of police stations in my constituency, such as those in the villages of Broughton, Sandycroft and Caergwrle. Those communities have been deprived of the direct assistance of their police station. As a consequence, I have received representations from town and community councils as well as from voluntary organisations and pensioner associations on Deeside.
It would be churlish, however, not to say that the recently formed community police stations are making a good stab at providing a comprehensive service to my constituents on Deeside and in Buckley, but there is anxiety, and some resentment, in the villages that have been deprived of police stations. I have not been able to assuage those responses to the closures.
My constituents believe that there should be more uniformed officers—more than now appear—who should be seen more regularly. We are, however, grateful in my constituency for what we have in the urban area of Deeside and the township of Buckley. We want to see more uniformed officers in the housing estates and in shopping areas. Without doubt, there is growing anxiety among the communities that I represent. That anxiety reflects the crimes that are committed. There are worries especially among young mothers and those who would describe themselves as retired and drawing pensions.
There is an increasing and comprehensive problem. No village is unaffected by drug and substance abuse. That is a worrying development, and it is arguably a problem throughout the nation. There is much anti-social behaviour in my constituency, involving neighbours on most of the estates. There is increasing vandalism, break-ins are regular and youngsters are often more than disrespectful to pensioners. Pensioners complain to me of foul-mouthed abuse from youths and even from young children. Burglaries are increasing and there is a fair incidence of violent crime. Only last year, in the township of Shotton, there was an armed bank robbery There was a successful outcome to the case, but I wish to respond to the anxiety in my communities and in others.
If there is to be less anxiety and more successful crime protection, I urge the Government further to consider their employment policies. If more real jobs were available to school leavers—if young people had the guarantee of access to real jobs that would pay a living wage rather than temporary jobs—I have no doubt that there would be less crime. The Government should tackle the problems of long-term and youth unemployment with more determination. They need more realistic policies on training and should provide better investment for education, which would lead to less crime by young people.
I have spoken of a climate of fear and anxiety, which can be tackled only by more visible policing and fairer funding for police authorities, not least the excellent North Wales police authority.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The settlement will not meet the known needs of the police service. The increase in the total standard spending assessment is £220 million, but the local authority associations estimate that the inescapable costs of the continuing employment of existing police officers and staff mean that the increase needed is higher—at least £250 million. That would not allow for the pressures on the police that require additional expenditure, including the cost of the DNA database, the increased workload and the demand for more closed circuit television, which can be a valuable crime-fighting resource.
We have recently heard absurd reports that tens of thousands of speeding motorists are escaping prosecution because the police cannot afford to put film in roadside cameras. The Association of Chief Police Officers has also made that point—and the cost of pursuing the cases presents a further deterrent. Some £40 million of the grant is the next instalment of the extra money that is supposed to provide an extra 5,000 police officers. In many forces, no extra officers will be provided because of the other pressures on police budgets.
As has been said, the effect of the settlement will be a shift in the source of the money to fund the police from the Government to council tax payers. The Government's funding increase averages just over 2 per cent., which is well below the 3.2 per cent. maximum increase in police authority budgets permitted under the capping rules. The intention is to make the Government look good at the expense of local authorities. That is demonstrated by the way in which the Government gloss over the point in their press releases. For example, Dorset police intend to spend at capping level in the coming year, and expenditure will therefore rise by about 3·2 per cent. The result for the council tax payer will be an increase of around 10 per cent. in what they paid towards the police last year. Each council tax payer will pay £63—an increase of more than £5·50 on last year—and the Government should make that clear. Government statements about finances should be explicit and honest, but perhaps that is asking too much.
There is a further reason why the additional funding will not result in the total number of extra officers that the Government have promised. They estimate that every extra police officer costs £20,000: the cost is nearer £23,000. Even if all the additional grant could be used for extra officers, it would provide only an extra 2,600 police officers In Warwickshire, the cuts of £6 million for the


1995–96 financial year are still being felt—59 fewer officers since 1992—and the police authority has been unable to replace retiring officers since it was formed in 1995.
Hampshire police are determined to recruit more police officers. Last year that meant that they more than reached the Government's target for extra police officers. This year, however, medium-term financial insecurity means that they will be unable to recruit extra officers. Some £2·8 million of Hampshire's money will be spent on pensions, and the authority will also be seriously affected by the cuts in capital expenditure. Nationally, pensions now amount to an eighth of police spending. The grant, which will have an uneven impact, will present severe budget problems for many police authorities. I am glad that the Minister recognised that, and I hope that she will continue to work on that troublesome aspect of budgeting in the police service.
Capital grants and credit approvals will be cut by £20 million, which represents a 10.4 per cent. decrease—following the 11 per cent. reduction in the current year. That can have a serious effect on revenue budgets because it prevents beneficial efficiency savings and the police authorities' maintaining their capital infrastructure to improve efficiency and enable police officers to deliver an effective service to the public.
In this year's formula, we have not only rule 1 but rule 3—a new feature of the funding formula. The additional rules work against the claim that the settlement takes full account of objectively assessed needs in each police area. Rule 3 has a quite different effect. Northumbria police lose £3 million as a result of the application of rules 1 and 3. That represents a lot of police officers, equipment and crime fighting. If the Home Secretary believes that there is a problem with the formula, he should alter it on an objective basis, not fiddle around with it or manipulate it at will. The formula will have a very significant effect on council tax. It looks as if the Home Secretary can devise additional rules so as to smile on one police authority and frown on another.
The outlook for police funding is very bleak because the drift of Government policy is to shift expenditure on to prisons. Not only does overcrowding call for the building of a series of new prisons, which the Government have accepted, but the Crime (Sentences) Bill will require a further 12 prisons. All such expenditure is likely to be at the expense of other Home Office services, including the police. Although it is very unlikely indeed that present Ministers will be in power in years to come, we are contemplating a rapid decline in police funding.
Ministers make much of the possibilities of using private finance. We may use the private finance initiative for police stations or have sponsored police cars with the sponsor's logo on the side. All that is of course beneath the dignity of the Queen's yacht, but it is not supposed to be beneath the dignity of the keeper of the Queen's peace. The Government have yet to develop a consistent attitude to what areas of public service are appropriate either for the PFI or, even more important, for sponsorship, which they regard as acceptable in the police service. Sponsorship especially presents potential dangers.
The reality for those of us who are especially concerned to see more police officers on the beat is that their number fell by almost 1,000 between 1992 and 1996. Whatever

the Government can inject in an attempt to recover lost ground does not detract from the fact that they did not deliver what they promised in 1992 and will not be able to deliver the reality of the Prime Minister's promise.
Such a point was vividly brought out and carefully documented by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—all the research and information was apparent. It took a number of interventions to underline the fact that his speech was, however, misleading, in that the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has made it clear that, under Labour, nothing will be any different; nothing will change. He has taken the view, on wider grounds, that there can be no change in Government spending plans. I am afraid that the implication of speeches that constantly attack the insufficiency of resources must be that more resources will be found from somewhere. That has been the drift of the speeches of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, but Labour cannot go on getting away with that.

Mr. Michael: I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will go on to make his own party's spending commitments for the police and other things. I simply do not accept that nothing will change. The amount of money available will certainly not change, but what will change under a Labour Government is, first, honesty about how we deal with such matters, and secondly, the priorities of tackling the problems of crime that have been exacerbated by the Government's policies—visibly, considering the mountain of crime that has been created since they came to power. Those two changes will make a great deal of difference.

Mr. Beith: I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman or, indeed, any member of any party in any future Government was able to meet the first of those commitments, and Government press releases honestly stated what was happening. That is a very desirable objective, which I entirely endorse. Changing priorities require the placing of additional resources in particular areas, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It would make a great deal of difference to fighting crime, especially youth crime, if we spent more money on education, as I am sure he agrees. That is another area in which the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has made it clear that no more money can be committed.

Mr. Michael: Education is one of Labour's five specific commitments. Another is to provide jobs and opportunities for young people in the 18 to 25 age group. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that would make a significant contribution to the environment in which—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We are getting rather wide of the debate.

Mr. Beith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The drift of speeches that say that there are insufficient resources for the police must be a preparedness to commit more resources to them. In pursuit of the hon. Gentleman's policy of honesty about statements on public finance, he should say that Labour could not find any more money, so the only improvements that it could achieve would be in spending existing money in different ways. That involves pretty uncomfortable resource decisions.
The Liberal Democrats have made a specific commitment to finding the money that would be required to recruit a further 1,000 police officers. I do not claim that we can solve all the other problems that have been identified in speeches tonight. Unless some extra resources are delivered to the police, the promises made by both the other parties will not be fulfilled.
The diversion of resources from the police into the prison system, which I criticised as part of the drift of Government policy, also applies to the Labour party, which has supported much of the legislation that would bring it about.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has honestly said that he would increase the number of police officers even further, and has acknowledged that that would have resource implications. Has he calculated how great those implications would be, and how does he intend to raise the money?

Mr. Beith: We would need about £100 million, and every one of our Budget presentations in the past two years has set out ways in which we would fund it. The commitment is specific, and in the run-up to the election we will do the costings again and demonstrate precisely how it would be done. It is not an enormous commitment, but we think that it is cost-effective and addresses the need sensed by the public to have more police officers available in communities, to deter crime and restore confidence, and not to do so in such a way that they are constantly being recalled into other parts of the hard-pressed police service.
In many a force, the efforts at community policing are constantly undermined by the desperate need to withdraw officers for other duties. We need a more settled system of community policing than that, and we have made a commitment to ensure that that is achieved.

Ms Angela Eagle: The people of Merseyside are deeply worried about the way in which the new system of police grant allocation has adversely affected their area. The Minister will be well aware of that, as many representations were made in the past financial year about the problems facing the area in the transition from the old to the new system.
Merseyside has in the past two years suffered a significant reduction—more than 400—in the number of officers that it can employ, despite the fact that the precept paid by local people has risen 50 per cent. in the past three years. Taking account of the settlement that the Minister announced tonight, which assumes a 16·9 per cent. increase for the financial year 1997–98, Merseyside council tax payers—the people of Wirral, as well as the four other local authorities—will be paying the third largest precept in the country.
It is the fastest rising precept in the country—because of the particular problems of Merseyside police, of which the Minister will be well aware. Some are technical and concern the way in which pensions are funded; others concern the decline in population that Merseyside has experienced pretty consistently over the past 20 years, without experiencing any decrease in crime. There has been a 41 per cent. increase in crime in the area since 1979.
Many people will be aware of the difficulties faced by the chief constable in the Liverpool area over the past couple of years. There has been a substantial increase in

drug and gang-related crime, and an alarming increase in the use of firearms. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that crime in the Merseyside area is 8 per cent. higher than the national average. The increase in violent crime is 33 per cent. above the national average. The nature of that crime—drug-related, gangland-related and drug wars, with people gunned down in the street—requires a particular response, which is expensive of resources if law and order is properly to be kept.
The high level of crime has a particularly difficult effect on other, perhaps quieter areas of the Merseyside region, such as mine on the Wirral peninsula. Officers who are an increasingly scarce resource are drafted over the river to help with incidents and emergencies. I shall give one example of how the loss of more than 400 officers in the past two years has affected the situation on the ground. A constituent who contacted me recently had been awakened one night by banging on her front door. She went out and realised that a young woman was being attacked and had fled to the front of her house for help. She got the woman inside to safety and called the police. She had a hysterical woman who had been subjected to a nasty physical assault on her hands. It took the police 45 minutes to respond, not because they wanted to take 45 minutes to respond to emergency calls, but simply because they did not have the officers.
I contacted a local superintendent about that incident. He revealed to me that, in Wallasey, the staffing level on the night shift was two sergeants and 15 constables. If there is a serious incident somewhere else in the Merseyside area, those police officers are diverted there. That leaves local commanders little ability to respond to incidents in my constituency and areas such as Wirral, South where people have particular difficulties. My constituents and the people of the Wirral are worried that, under the Government's funding formula, they are being asked to pay a greater share of the cost of their police force through the council tax, but less money is directed to put officers on the beat to protect them. They are paying a great deal more and getting less cover for it.
As I am concerned about crime as an issue, I conducted a crime survey in my constituency. Another has been conducted in Wirral, South. The response was interesting. It demonstrated what people at the receiving end of the announcements that the Minister made in the House tonight think about the service that they receive.
My survey was of more than 600 people, so it was a reasonable size. Of the respondents, 71 per cent. felt vulnerable all or some of the time in public places. In Wirral, South the figure was 53 per cent. In Wallasey, 37 per cent. felt vulnerable in their own homes. Interestingly, the figure for Wirral was 42 per cent.—more people there felt vulnerable in their own home. In Wallasey, 30 per cent. of respondents said that they had been a victim of crime in the past two years and 83 per cent. had reported those crimes to the police. In Wirral, South, 49 per cent. of people had been a victim of crime in the past two years. In my constituency, just 8 per cent. of the victims were aware that an arrest had been made for the crimes committed against them. In Wirral, South the figure was much lower—only 5 per cent.
People realise that crime is increasing—they are increasingly victims of it. They also know that detection rates are falling and that they are expected to pay more in


council tax for a police service that is less and less likely to be able to provide the number of officers necessary for their safety.
The overwhelming view of the people in both Wirral, South and Wallasey who responded to the surveys was that they wanted more police on the beat as a way of deterring the pettier forms of crime and to reassure them that there is a reasonable degree of law and order in their community. During the past two years, the result of the Conservative party's funding of the police service in Merseyside has been that, although people have wanted more police on the beat and paid more for them, they have actually had fewer.
What is expected to happen up to 2000 as a result of the progressive introduction of the new police funding formula, which the Minister's statement introduces for another year, is an additional loss of more than 200 police officers, and some support staff going as well. Those figures are not made up—they come directly from the chief constable's forward budget plans. Because of the injustices to the Merseyside police force inherent in the settlement, we are to expect a loss of revenue of £16 million by 2000–01. My constituents find it hard to understand why they must pay more but get less; and why, as crime levels rise, as levels of violent crime rise, and as people's fear of crime rises, our ability to respond to it, to reassure them and to stamp it out is falling.
That does not sit well with much of the Conservative party's rhetoric about crime, and it is on that record that they will be judged in the coming election and by-election. I want the Minister to give assurances that she will examine the particular problems facing Merseyside because of the way in which the funding formula has been introduced and because we have particular disadvantages resulting from the structure of the force that we had, which the funding formula fails to recognise. Of course we welcome the acknowledgement of the problems with funding pensions, but there are other difficulties, such as higher levels of violent crime and crimes that are difficult to solve, labour intensive and require immediate responses from officers on the ground, thus drawing them away from other places.
The people of Merseyside will judge the Government on how they listen to the problems of funding Merseyside police that I am outlining tonight when they come to decide how serious the Conservative party is about doing the best it can to obviate the huge increases in crime over which it has presided during its many years in office.

Miss Widdecombe: I should have liked to say that this has been an interesting debate, but what has been most interesting is that it has exposed the utter sham of Labour's policy. Labour Members have spent the entire debate criticising resources, yet, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly pointed out, at the same time they admit that they would not make any extra money available.

Mr. Michael: The whole purpose of our remarks has been to expose the fact that the Government are pretending that they are providing resources to the police, but that they have not provided resources to the police,

are not providing resources to the police and are not providing the increased police numbers promised by the Prime Minister. They are failing.

Miss Widdecombe: It is a fact of life that we now have 16,000 more officers than we had when the Labour party was in power. It is a fact of life that the Labour party, which criticises us for the resources we provide but which does not promise any more, in the last two years of its last term of office—which, I am sure, the entire nation remembers with horror—decreased spending on the police in real terms, first, by 5.5 per cent. and then by an additional 0.5 per cent. We need no lessons from the Labour party on resourcing the police.
Labour Members say, "It is unfair that the council tax payer is bearing some of the burden," but central Government bear between 80 and 85 per cent. Do we assume that the council tax payer would pay less towards the police in the highly unlikely event that there was ever a Labour Government?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is back in opposition mode, asking questions. I said that the Home Secretary has pretended to provide resources to the police but has not done so. He is providing an increase to the police that does not keep pace with inflation. He is making local authorities find the money for the police. Does she not understand the figures that she is speaking to?

Miss Widdecombe: I fully understand the figures, but we do not appear to have heard, amidst the large amount of criticism, a clear statement of what the Labour party would do. We have no idea whether the council tax payer would pay less under Labour. [Interruption.] The problem with the Opposition is that they are deluding themselves that they will soon be sitting on the Government Benches, so they are afraid of putting flesh on the bones of what they say, but they cannot quite get out of the habit. They tell the people of Britain that we are not resourcing the police properly when they will not commit themselves to paying a penny more than us.
There have been many calls for this debate to be fairly reflected elsewhere. I hope that that point is made repeatedly, because it is high time that the people of Britain sussed out the con trick that Labour Members are playing.

Mr. Michael: The con trick is the one that the hon. Lady is trying to play on the people of the country. The con trick, to use her term, is a Prime Minister who promises 1,000 extra police officers and does not deliver—who promises 5,000 extra police officers and does not provide the resources. That is the con trick that the Government are trying to play on the people of the country. It is a disgrace, and they have been nailed in the debate tonight.

Miss Widdecombe: Far short of being nailed, I demonstrated clearly that we did provide the extra funding. I showed that the number of officers increased by 845 or so in that year. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman, wanting to complain about resources but being unable to promise extra resources, not knowing


which other way to turn, simply flatly denies every fact that I give him but has no evidence to back up what he says.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I have heard enough nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not like nonsense, because I like sense to be talked in the House. The hon. Gentleman is right that I do not like the nonsense that he talks, and I do not intend to listen to much more of it tonight.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I will not give way this time, but I may later. I want to make progress.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for the hon. Lady to refer to Home Office figures for which she is responsible as "nonsense"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is responsible for her own speech, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Miss Widdecombe: The trouble is that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) cannot understand what he is being told. The nonsense that I was referring to was that which is being talked by the Opposition tonight, not by the Government.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth had the gall to say that violent crime was up. If Labour is so worried about violent crime, why did its Members abstain on the Crime (Sentences) Bill only a couple of weeks ago? Why did they vote against increasing penalties for taking a gun to the scene of a crime? If they are so worried about violent crime, given that much of it is drugs related, why did not they support the Bill's provisions on mandatory sentences for those peddling drugs?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is asking questions again. Why was there nothing about crime, violence or guns in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was supposed to be a landmark Act, until Labour moved amendments to it? She is wrong. We have set the agenda on these issues. The Government have repeatedly voted down Labour proposals to deal with violent crime and these issues. The Minister just repeats the mantra, and she is wrong.

Miss Widdecombe: The Labour agenda on crime is to say one thing and vote in the Lobby for something quite different. The only difference this time is that, instead of voting with their feet, Labour Members sat on their hands. They could not even make up their minds what they wanted to do. The hon. Gentleman knows that his party is all talk and no do when the time comes to deliver on the measures.
A number of interesting remarks were made in the debate, including several about Merseyside. Some of those were also made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and I answered them. Other interesting comments related to north Wales. It was pointed out that there is already a substantial increase in resources for

north Wales. I take the point about the problem of the child abuse inquiry, but it is open to the North Wales police to apply to the Home Office if extra expenditure is incurred. That serious matter was raised by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Further serious points were raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has apologised for not being able to be present for the rest of the debate.
I have heard nothing from the Opposition tonight that convinces me that they even understand the figures or the problems of crime, or that they have the will to do anything about it. Everything that Labour Front Benchers have said tonight, with the exception of one or two detailed points made by hon. Members behind the Front Bench, has been geared to one message: we do not like what the Government are doing, but we will do the same ourselves, although we will not vote that way in the meantime because we cannot make up our minds. Their approach is a shambles and a sham.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1997–98 (HC 208), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the following two motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LEGAL PROFESSION

That the draft Executry Practitioners (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.

That the draft Independent Qualified Conveyancers (Scotland) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT

That the draft Potato Industry Development Council Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Question agreed to.

POLICE (PROPERTY) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police (Property) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are paid out of money so provided.—[Mr. Carrington.]

PETITION

Orders of the Day — Bridges (River Calder)

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity to present to the House a petition on behalf of Sharon Jackson of Thornhill Lees in Dewsbury and 1,700 other constituents of mine. The petition has been organised—very bravely—by Sharon Jackson, following the tragic death of her eight-year-old son David, who fell to his death from a local bridge over the River Calder.
We all sympathise with David's family and recognise the need to protect other families in Dewsbury from any unnecessary hardship or suffering of a similar nature. The purpose of the petition is to help to ensure that such accidents do not happen again. The petition declares:
That people in Dewsbury are concerned about the safety of bridges crossing the River Calder and that an eight-year-old boy, David Jackson, fell from one such bridge to his death in April 1994.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons request that the relevant Government Department ensures that the bridge is made safe or demolished, in order to prevent any further fatalities.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Public Services (East Midlands)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Mr. Graham Allen: The strongest argument for an east midlands regional assembly is the way in which the outgoing Tory Government have mistreated and neglected our region, its cities and its counties of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Northamptonshire. The only good thing about such a catastrophic failure of central Government is that it speeds the creation of more democratic and accountable forms of government which are familiar in most western democracies, including an east midlands regional assembly and more effective and independent local government.
Already the Yorkshire and Humberside region has set up an assembly, and all the local councils in the region have signed up and paid their subscriptions. Well ahead of legislation, one region is ready to go, and there may be others. Local councils in the east midlands should take heed and get their collective act together in the 13 weeks that remain before a change of Government.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in the Chamber. Several of my other colleagues may join the debate later. Shortly before Christmas, east midlands Members of Parliament from all parties met a delegation comprising council leaders of all political persuasions and regional Confederation of British Industry and chamber of commerce representatives. They were lobbying, on behalf of the east midlands, for what they called their "missing millions". Their case is incontrovertible: by any measure, the east midlands is not getting its slice of the cake.
We get less than our fair share of Government grants, of lottery schemes, hospital expenditure, and transport, housing, the arts and European funding. It makes a grand total of £700 million—which is a lot of missing money. The people of the east midlands are council tax payers and income tax payers, and we are entitled to our fair share of the pie—we do not want more than that—but we are clearly not getting it at the moment. That is partly because we do not speak with one voice on behalf of our region in the way that the north-east or the south-west do—and good luck to them. Our own regional assembly would be a step in the right direction.
I have called this Adjournment debate on behalf of the east midlands region, which has seen its public services squeezed and real opportunities for regional development lost as a result of Government underfunding. There are three key problems. First, local government in the east midlands has not received its fair share of the pie; secondly, local health services have suffered from disproportionate underfunding by the Government—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) has made many times—and, thirdly, the region has received an under-allocation of lottery grants.
The past 20 years have seen a major decline in many of the east midlands' traditional industries. The Government decimated the coal industry—particularly in my county of


Nottinghamshire—and the steel industry, affecting Corby most obviously. Rail manufacturing was affected, thereby undermining the industrial base of Derby and Derbyshire. The textile and footwear industries through Northamptonshire to Mansfield and the engineering industry throughout the whole region have declined. What economic growth we gave seen has occurred largely in the service sector.
Against that background, we can see how important it is for local councils to provide quality services in order to combat deprivation and rebuild our economic base. However, failure to be given our fair share of Government grants, the Government's nationalisation of the business rate and restrictions on the spending of capital receipts have had serious consequences for the properly democratically elected local councils in our region.
Since 1991, the east midlands has fallen 5 per cent. behind the average standard spending assessments of the shire counties. That amounts to a Government fine of £94.4 million on taxpayers in our region. Will the Minister explain why that has occurred? In 1996–97, the region will receive £126 per head less than the English average standard spending assessment. Given Conservative capping policies, that money cannot be made good elsewhere. Will the Minister tell the people of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire why that is so?
Basic credit approvals available to east midlands councils have declined in the past four years in terms of moneys raised and percentages available. Hinckley, Bosworth, Daventry, and Wellingborough have received no basic credit approvals since 1992–93. That is also an acute problem in Northamptonshire and in many other parts of our region. Will the Minister tell those hard-pressed councils and their taxpayers why that is so?
A comparison of regional funding generated by the regional development offices shows that, while the East Midlands Development Company generates almost as much funding as other major RDOs, it receives considerably less grant from central Government. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who is in the Chamber tonight. The Minister may smirk: only those boroughs that benefit from this perverse system, such as Westminster and Wandsworth—which is the Minister's former London borough—could smirk. If my city of Nottingham received the same grant as Westminster, not only would it not send out a demand for council tax, but it could send every council tax payer a cheque for £719. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) told me that council tax payers in his constituency would receive a cheque for more than £800. The same applies to Amber Valley, Erewash, Luton, South and Brigg and Cleethorpes, which are Conservative marginals.
I suspect that electors in those area, who subsidise the Government's policy and whose Members of Parliament voted for it, will watch carefully the events in the Chamber on Monday when we discuss the local government settlement for England and Wales. They will want to know which Lobby their Members of Parliament go through, and whether they vote to continue the imposition of the fine on people who live in those constituencies. If it is not a fair and equal deal for all people, it is not the way in which a British Government should behave.
Another area of discontent is the current system of national lottery grant allocation, which has worked to the detriment of the east midlands. It receives a derisory 2·8 per cent. of the total. Despite the welcome recent announcement about the Nottingham ice stadium, the region remains severely underfunded. Why should we have to beg for fair shares? Funding should be ours as of right. What a travesty it is that for every £100 of lottery tickets bought by people in the Tory marginals of Derby, North, Lincoln, Milton Keynes, South-West or Corby, only £25 comes back to them in lottery projects, whereas in Wandsworth, Westminster and other parts of London, £75 of every £100-worth of lottery ticket money goes back to the region.

Mr. Alan Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that no one knows how some of the people on the lottery boards got there? Some of them are place people, who are full-time local authority officials. Hardly any of them have been elected. They make some very wild decisions. If politicians made such decisions, they would be derided by the press on the front pages of local newspapers.

Mr. Allen: That is probably one of the reasons why, of more than 1,000 projects agreed by the Millennium Commission, only five have come to the east midlands. There is very little local and regional input.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the east midlands receives only 0·68 per cent of funds for millennium projects? There are adventurous projects, such as the landmark projects that will do up miners' welfares, the project to recreate the Sherwood forest and the project to get the Grantham canal back into operation. There are good, prestigious projects that will bring new investment and new life to the east midlands. We should ask for an undertaking that those projects will take place to bring a new future in the 21st century.

Mr. Allen: I agree with my hon. Friend. We must reorient the way in which some of these funds are spent so that people throughout the land feel that they are getting a fair crack of the whip. Local people have a greater affinity with some of the important but smaller projects. People do not like the grandiose projects that take place more than a train journey away from where they live. Regional priorities should be better reflected in funding decisions. Lottery boards should have a regional infrastructure and tougher ministerial guidance.
The east midlands is also the poor relation on health. Not one district health authority in our region is in the top third of the funding table. Leicestershire and Nottingham health authorities languish at the bottom of the table, in 87th and 86th place respectively.

Mr. John Heppell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the stage that the crisis in the health service has now reached, at least in the Nottingham area? For nearly six months of the year, many of my constituents—along with those of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are present—have only an emergency service available. All routine operations are cancelled.

Mr. Allen: Thanks to the campaigning of, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, but also that of other hon. Members in the Nottingham area, even the Secretary of State had to admit in February that health services in Nottingham were underfunded by about £9 million, and were receiving considerably less than the Government's own figures demanded to meet the needs of Nottingham people. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, that has led to the postponement of so-called routine, non-emergency operations in our community medical centre in Nottingham for the remainder of the financial year. The Government must propose a way of ending the shortfall.
Again, we are not asking for money that people say we should not receive; we are asking for money that, according to the Government's own figures, local hospitals should receive. I am sure that my hon. Friends who are present could repeat that story throughout the region. Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital has suffered a cut of £1·1 million from a budget of £59 million; two and a half wards and two operating theatres have been closed, and capital schemes have been deferred. Behind those statistics are real cases: real people need treatment, and are not receiving it.
It is possible to give similar examples in all policy areas—transport, European funds and education, which I know concerns certain hon. Members.

Mr. Harry Barnes: In 1989, Derbyshire had a proud record of having generally smaller class sizes than any other shire county. In primary education, it was in second position, just behind Nottinghamshire. Now, it has larger class sizes than any other shire county. The same group of politicians are attempting to operate the same policies, but there is an external factor: the way in which the Government make the standard spending assessment.

Mr. Allen: I entirely agree. As I have said, the story is repeated in every area of policy. All the Opposition Members who are present have suffered from the nonsense of Government intervention in our region in regard to European funds—the RECHAR money, and the urban initiatives. No Government involvement is actually necessary, but they are blocking real money, particularly money for the former coal mining areas that were decimated by the Government's policies in the 1980s. The regional allocation of challenge funds with no clear rules for their sub-regional allocation leads to serious anomalies between places such as Nottingham and Sheffield, purely because they are covered by different Government regional offices.
This can only exacerbate the divisions and deprivations that exist in many areas. The sooner the faceless bureaucracy of Government regional offices that has been imposed on the regions by the Conservatives is brought under democratic control, the better. In a modern democracy, it is no longer acceptable for my region—and all the others—to be treated by London like some imperial outpost. It is government by a district officer appointed by Whitehall. It only needs a donkey and a fly swat to complete the picture of the Raj ruling in our region.
That is not acceptable in this day and age. Funding regimes should ensure that bids are not ruled out by virtue of regional allocation formulae based on criteria that are not open to public scrutiny and debate, or by a relatively low number of high-profile bids receiving a disproportionate amount of money, with the result that high-quality smaller bids are rejected. I could deal with many other aspects, such as city challenge and the regeneration budget, but I must leave the Minister some time in which to reply. I have allowed a number of my hon. Friends to intervene.
I have been careful to be modest: I have asked only for a fair allocation of existing resources, rather than suggesting that there should be a bigger pot in any one area. It is possible to present a case for the east midlands to receive more than its fair share, as the typical east midlands income is 11 per cent. below the average, and the average wage in every one of its counties is below the national average, but my argument, like that of east midlands local authority leaders, the regional Confederation of British Industry, the chamber of commerce in the east midlands and trade unions in the east midlands, has been not for more expenditure globally or throughout the United Kingdom, but just that we should receive our fair share. That is modest and I hope that the Government will respond to it.
Labour Members hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will admit that there is a problem, that it has devastating consequences for people in our region, and that it must be put right now or after the general election.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We talk about capping and this debate has capped an intriguing month. This month, we have been told by the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that global expenditure will be kept down and that personal taxation will remain fixed—if we ever had the misfortune of a Labour Government—and the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and I met between 80 and 100 local authorities. They sang the same tune. They were almost all Labour. A few were Liberal, but they seemed to be under the same banner.
We also met local authority associations, which came up with the same tune as we have been hearing this evening. They all wanted more money in the form of the standard spending assessment—more from central taxation. They wanted capping to be lifted so that, through the council tax, they could soak local people for more money. Most of them wanted the business rate to be put back in their hands so that they could set it and take it. They also wanted compulsory competitive tendering, which is a means of obtaining value for money, to be removed. All that is a claim for more taxes, more public expenditure and more money.
The other point that is worth thinking about was made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen): the old yarn over Westminster. That caused concern because he obviously does not understand the SSA system. He does not understand that it has been carefully worked out and that it has been recognised by independent experts as the best way for such a distribution. Of course the Labour Front-Bench environment team does not recognise experts.
There is a failure to recognise Westminster's needs. May I touch on some that are not found in the same proportion in the east midlands? Westminster has a higher proportion of people in shared or non-permanent accommodation than Hackney, Lambeth, Southwark or Tower Hamlets. Westminster has a higher proportion of people living in overcrowded accommodation than Islington, Lambeth, Southwark or anywhere in the east midlands. Westminster has a higher proportion of people born outside the European Community, the old Commonwealth or the United States of America than Hackney, Lambeth, Southwark or Tower Hamlets.
It is clear that the Government's correct intention is that the overall and fundamental aim is to reduce public sector borrowing. Despite that, they have managed to increase next year's expenditure provision to local authorities overall by 2·5 per cent.
This year, east midlands authorities will receive some £3 billion of taxpayers' money through the SSA. In addition, we have recognised the pressure on the national health service. Year in year out, extra money has gone in. I understand that North Derbyshire health authority recently issued a press statement saying that it received over £2·9 million more than it expected, and Nottingham health authority also received a larger budget than it expected.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: I am afraid not. I have seven or eight minutes left. There is a lot to say, as much is happening in the region.
Every year, the Government regularly discuss possible changes to the method of the standard spending assessment with local authority associations and general agreement is reached All the information is up to date. It is all available to the authorities, which take the opportunity during the consultation to put forward points. Although the Government make their commitment to local services through the SSA system, they are prepared to change it where good cause is shown. We expect local authorities to spend locally raised and Government resources wisely and well.
It was intriguing last week to see some local authority representatives trooping in and telling appalling mismanagement stories. Northampton is but one example. It expects the Government to provide funding of £1 million a year for loss of rent on a council-owned building. Some years ago, when the building had a tenant, the council was advised by its treasurer to sell it, but it refused. It is suffering from its own inefficiency, and expects the Government to bale it out.
Local authorities present shopping lists, and they are only that. They must recognise that this is 1997, not 1947, and that we need to think forward about different ways of operating. Public services today and tomorrow will depend more and more on private sector delivery. At the very least, local authorities should be looking towards using competitive tendering and the private finance initiative. The east midlands has received enormous and comprehensive support.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: No. I have just a few minutes left and I have plenty to say.
Under capital challenge, 20 authorities in the east midlands have been successful and between them they will receive £42 million over the next three years. I give credit to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). As sponsoring Minister, he helped to support and promote the area's cause.

Mr. Tipping: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I hope that in such a short debate it is a genuine point of order.

Mr. Tipping: The Minister mentioned the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. Did the Minister give his hon. Friend notice that he would mention him? I draw to your attention the fact that there is not one Tory Member from the east midlands in the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order As I feared, that was not a point of order.

Sir Paul Beresford: I did give my hon. Friend notice.
There is no doubt about the benefits of competition and partnership. They are the way forward, because they form the right approach and have helped the east midlands. City challenge has given each of the cities of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester Government support of £37·5 million to revive parts of their urban areas. That Government contribution is expected to lever in £413 million from the private sector and £150 million from elsewhere.
Under the single regeneration budget, 40 partnerships in all five counties in the east midlands will receive £142 million between them, and that will attract £320 million from the private sector. There is no doubt that communities in the east midlands have come out of the competitive process well. National lottery funds were mentioned. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North failed to recognise that those are not distributed geographically. They have to be applied for, and applications are judged on their merits rather than on their geographical origins.
Next year, the east midlands will receive £70 million under transport policies and programmes. That will allow considerable road improvements, package bids and road safety measures. Many transport projects will receive support from capital challenge and the region will get £94 million a year from the housing investment programme over the next two years.
The Government have an impressive record in helping to make the east midlands an attractive place in which to live and work. I know the area, because I go there frequently, and I know that it is impressively successful. Government programmes have helped to increase the competitiveness of the region, and overall growth to the year 2000 is expected to exceed the national average. The Government's prompt action in 1993 included a £200 million national package of support following coalfield closures, and the east midlands received more


than £35 million of that. In addition, four coal enterprise zones were designated and are proving successful. We estimate that they will create about 6,000 new jobs.
Europe and European structural funds were mentioned. The 1994–99 programme will provide another £40 million and those grants will attract another £100 million. It is worth repeating some of the figures. SSA this year in the east midlands will amount to £3·061 billion. The 1997–98 estimate was £3.11 billion. Capital challenge for 20 authorities was £42 million and city challenge was £112.5 million. Challenge funding was £142 million.

Those funds will lever in £733 million from the private sector. Over two years, TPP will bring in £70 million and HIP £94 million to the east midlands. European funding will provide the area with £240 million, whereas the response to the coal closures will bring it £35 million.
In the few moments I have left, I should remind Labour Members that they have failed to learn one basic fact: one should not judge the quality of a service by the amount of money—other people's money—spent on it. There is a tremendous amount of truth in a statement that is becoming an old saying: new Labour, new taxes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.